Darwin's family tree.

[Joshua-777]

Now, I'm going to look at the famous Darwins tree, That in theory we evolved from, in this I hope to cover evidence in the following.

1 How non-life became life.

2. Single cell organisms to multi cell organisms

3.fish to amphibians

4. Amphibians to reptiles

5. reptiles to birds

6. reptiles to mamals.

Now, not getting into the monkey to man yet. I want to do more research first. But in this I hope to uncover all facts, and look at evidence suporting this tree, and evidence against it.

[JustinM]

Kind've rediculous theory isn't it? I was watching The Discovery Channel yesterday and I felt like it was obsessed with Darwin's Theory of Evolution. They also had naked people walking around in one of their shows. They gave a warning about partial nudity, but how partial is it when you can see everything? Should this be allowed on TV?

[Joshua-777]

Kind've rediculous theory isn't it? I was watching The Discovery Channel yesterday and I felt like it was obsessed with Darwin's Theory of Evolution. They also had naked people walking around in one of their shows. They gave a warning about partial nudity, but how partial is it when you can see everything? Should this be allowed on TV?

Ya I feel it is, But I do feel it is important to look at the claims, and base it on wether there is fact, or just speculation. So I'm hoping to disprove the claims of darwin by looking at the evidence provided.

[ted]

Ready......begin!

lol

t.

[Joshua-777]

1. non life turns to life?

Well The law of Bioligy states that this is impossible. But somehow is a key point in an evolution point of view. Miller, is the only scientist who's suposibly came close to creating life from non life, What did he do?

He created amino acids, how? he created an oxigen free envoirment methane With an apparatus which included boiling water, hydrogen, and ammonium hydroxcide. Then there was a spark if 50000 volts, there was a cooling chamber, and a trap, and yes he was able to produce amino acid, glycine, alamine, aspartic, and glutamic acids, there where non biological amino acids, orea, organic acids, formic, acetic, succinic, and latic

Problems, Unrealistic to have an oxygen free enviorment in the original earth if life developed from non life, there would be no trap present when life was formed, there was a production of toxic chemicals which would have destroyed any of these building blocks that where supposedly created spontaneously. left handed amino acids are the only ones required for life, when in this situation, both left and right handed where produced. This whole experiment is not proof that life came from nonlife.

Amino acids are a componant of a protein, posibility of proteins formulating spontaneously from amino acids. lets check out the stats, at mass, institute of tecnoligy. They say the chance would be 1 in 10 followed by 56 zero's, A protien molecule is a building block for a cell, there is not a chance it could have happened, this idea that molicules can become cells is nothing more than fiction, no facts support it.

Life must come from pre-existing life, it is called the Law of bioligy, No one has ever seen anything different.

[nebula]

Also, what do you mean by "right and left-handed" amino acids?

Organic chemistry.

Molecules are in 3-d arrangements. When you have four atoms joined together, they form a pyrimid-like shape, not squares. From any angle, you will see a triangle with one atom facing behind.

It's easier if you have a model in front of you. But you will find that there are two ways these atoms can be arranged. With one atom (a) as your "top" of the triangle, you can have another (b) on the right angle, and the other

[backontrack]

Now, I'm going to look at the famous Darwins tree, That in theory we evolved from, in this I hope to cover evidence in the following.

1 How non-life became life.

2. Single cell organisms to multi cell organisms

3.fish to amphibians

4. Amphibians to reptiles

5. reptiles to birds

6. reptiles to mamals.

Now, not getting into the monkey to man yet. I want to do more research first. But in this I hope to uncover all facts, and look at evidence suporting this tree, and evidence against it.

Remember this in your research, God only gave one of you a soul! You!

[Joshua-777]

Cell theory implies this is impossible. (And under modern conditions, that we know of, it is. However the conditions of early Earth were markedly different.) The theory of abiogenesis states that life comes from non-life. Both of these theories are separate from the theory of evolution. A lot of Believers are missing something here: theories do not have to be universally comprehensive. For instance, Newtonian physics has yet to be reconciled with quantum physics, although we know both to be accurate and true in describing certain things. Many people erroneously combine natural selection and abiogenesis when any scientist can tell you they are two different theories.

what proof can The theory of abiogenesis stand on? is there any evidence, or fact? observable evidence? repeated experimentation?

Natural selection, I agree with to an extent, but to the only extent it is observable, and repeated, that a species survives Due to Natural Selection, and evolutionary changes that are horizontal within genetic boundries, Like you have many kinds of Humans, all vary, but still human, many kinds of dogs, different features, and types of Dogs vary, but still stay within genetic range. This is what darwin has realized with the finches. As far as vertical evolution I don't believe in, cause of genetic boundries, which I'm not going to get into until I research some more. Abiogenesis, What facts support it? observable evidence state that it is imposible within the cell theory. What fact, does the abiogenises stand on?

The first life were obligate anaerobes, that is, organisms who not only lived without oxygen, but to which oxygen was poisonous. (There still existed obligate anaerobic bacteria today.) Somewhat ironically, these bacteria metabolized oxygen-containing compounds and expelled free oxygen into the atmosphere. Thusly they eventually killed themselves. But later aerobic organisms evolved that thrived in this new oxygen-rich environment. My point? The toxicity of a substance very much depends on the kind of organisms we are talking about. Many organisms could have survived in the environment of early Earth, although it contains toxins that would kill most organisms living today. Also, what do you mean by "right and left-handed" amino acids?

Once again the observable? Obligate anaerobic bacteria, well the observable evidence in this is Obligate anaerobes will die when exposed to atmospheric levels of oxygen, Can they produce Oxygen in observable evidence? ANd later anerobic organisms evolved, this is theory, unless you can provide proof that they evolved, and yes I agree to some bacteria can survive the toxicity, but what proof can you provide that they evolved? Now as for the Cell theory, it doesn't agree as you said, so there is a gap there that cannot be explained. and left and right handed, I believe nebula answered that one.

Of course it is very improbable that complex proteins would self-assemble. That is why it took millions of years. When you multiply that staggering improbability by a staggering amount of space and a staggering amount of time, the staggering-ness of it all cancels. It becomes probable.

Honestly, to me, this does very much so doesn't fill the gap, and doesn't make it very probable, millions of years, the staggering improbability still remains the same, given that much time, there is still a 1 in 10 and 56 zero chance, Now Logicly, this seems imposible, and more based on speculation. can any observable evidence show that it can?

As I said earlier, don't take the theories out of context. New life will probably not evolve on today's Earth because (1) it would be instantly snapped up and outcompeted by the well-adapted life that already exists and (2) highly electronegative elements like oxygen, which are ubiquitous in the Earth's atmosphere, prevent things like amino acids from self-assembling.

It's good to see you've learned more about scientists' view of the history of Earth, Josh, however there is still much more to know.

Well logic, the theorys gathered have to interlink some how, Like the big bang, Then nonlife to life, then organisms. I understand why the theorys are important separated, but I do feel it should be looked at compaired to one another, cause if a theory is in fact true, than how can another theory be true, when opposed to the laws the previous one presents? And new life will not evolve today, I can agree to that, in a creationist point of view, All has been made, and life is established. so, the fact it probible will not change, is neutral to both opposing sides. And yes I've got alot more to learn, I am trying though, and I will continue searching, if I take anything out of context, I'm sorry I'm kind of new at this. peace and blessings.

[Joshua-777]

Now, I'm going to look at the famous Darwins tree, That in theory we evolved from, in this I hope to cover evidence in the following.

1 How non-life became life.

2. Single cell organisms to multi cell organisms

3.fish to amphibians

4. Amphibians to reptiles

5. reptiles to birds

6. reptiles to mamals.

Now, not getting into the monkey to man yet. I want to do more research first. But in this I hope to uncover all facts, and look at evidence suporting this tree, and evidence against it.

Remember this in your research, God only gave one of you a soul! You!

Amen,

[Joshua-777]

Unless I'm wrong, Genesis suggests that, although we were created by God, we came from nothing.

Actualy the bible does state that we where formed out of the dust, or soil of the ground, and that God breathed life into us, Now, actualy, this supports more than the evidence for non-life turned into life,

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul

What I find funny is when we die, our bodys decompose, becoming soil adventualy, and going back to the dirt, which the bible states we where created. Now as far as vitamins and Minerals, in the soil, we will find the same compounds in our body as well.

Now, as far as life from non-life, I cannot believe that amino acid could turn into cell, or protien, when it is a building block, the odds that it did, are strongly against it.

If you don't believe in macroevolution, where do you suppose all the organisms we see today came from? The fossil record shows that very few of the organisms living today are at all similar to the animals that lived earlier in the fossil record. Evidence shows there existed a time in which no animals with spines existed. So where do you think these came from? A creator deity whose own presence is entirely unexplained?

Well, now I believe we have a spirit, one thing funny about a creator deity, his presence is entirely known to those that have faith, many upon many Christians lives with a relationship with Jesus, have a supernatural sence of him, and can feel his presence, let him direct us, it starts with faith first, some God just calls to him, revealing himself, but to those who love him, He makes himself known, he is beyond the creation so of course you cannot analize him. He's not matter, but he is the creator of matter. be is beyond what we can comprehend. So many put God in a Box, that they don;t understand the depth it goes in. Evidence of the Holy spirit, I can honestly say that I have seen many and have a few spiritual gifts that come through him, which cannot be explained other than Jesus working in our lives. I Pray in a devotional language that is my spirit speaking directly to God. I have had many visions in my life that has come true, but ya see, the evidence is provided to those who believe, and those who truly want to know him. If God is real, would you want to know him?

Theories pertain to specific aspects or spans of the universe. No theory is a comprehensive explanation of the universe, although physicists are looking for one. Natural selection should not be made to explain the Big Bang, just like it should not be made to explain abiogenesis. The laws of one theory do not necessarily apply to another because theories do not necessarily overlap. Nonlife led to life, and the relevance of the theory of abiogenesis ends. Then natural selection takes over, and it explains the evolution of life thereafter. If the jurisdictions of the two theories overlapped, then there might be a contradiction, but the fact is evolution and cell theory are null until life appears. Abiogenesis is not a contradiction to these theories, it is a prerequisite! Get the idea?

Ok, I understand,

One thing that actualy should so some significance, that one day to us is like a thousand years, mabie even a million years to God, so therefore, mabie it was one of our days. Mabie it was one of God's days, who knows.

Now lets look at the next stage of life. What evidences does the fossils suport.

Richard Dawkins, the evolutionist, promotes evolution in a great way in Great Britain. In his book, The Blind Watchmaker, he has made this statement:

The Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years ago, are the oldest which we find of the major invertebrate groups and we find many of them in advanced state of evolution the very first time they appear. It is as though they were planted there without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. (Dawkins, 229)

National geographic

more than half a billion years ago, the world's first monster appeared. With bulging eyes and fearsome grasping claws, Anomalocaris cruised the seas during the geological period known as the Cambrian. Its mouth was a nightmare of hard plates and teeth. Its body looking like a cross between a stingray and a lobster. It could grow three feet in length, a giant for its time. For millions of years animals have been simple, mostly anemone like creatures or worms. Then in a geological blink of about ten million years virtually all the phyla or groupings based on body design of animals alive today, came into being. Perhaps encouraged by an increase of oxygen in the seas, this Cambrian explosion was the greatest burst of animal evolution the planet has ever known and new fossil finds are highlighting its detail. (Gore & Mazzatenta, 120)

there is a sudden appearance of complex creatures. You see all of a sudden, multi-cellular creatures appeared, now we have a great problem because in the Cambrian, which is supposed to be down at the bottom of the chart as one of the oldest layers, we have the appearance of these complex animals. And they have no intermediates that they can trace in order to show that single-cell creatures have evolved. Which supports creation with evident fossil records of the cambrian time frame.