Charles Darwin and the "Tree of Life"

[Youwerecreated]

Is it? As far as I can tell there is science there.

Darwin speculated on a primogenitor that is the source of all life on Earth. Since we know less than nothing about abiogenesis, the entire foundation of the tree of life is speculation. Additionally, most biologists look at life more like a vine than a tree, because the interrelationship between species is a lot more complicated and intertwined than a tree can accurately depict. Would you prefer outdated and obsolete to speculation?

Darwin speculated on the origin of life, a speculation backed up with the most profound understanding of life in existance at that time. Today we know a great deal more having built on the foundation that Darwin provided.

We know quite a bit more concerning abiogenisis than you state. From Fox's protocells to the building of complex molecules, even the source of the chirality in the molecules of life, a great deal has been discovered in the last few decades. Of course, we have much yet to discover, but the work is advancing rapidly. And it looks like the question is not what the path was, but which path was taken.

Yes, more like a vine or a bush than a tree. However, that takes absolutely nothing away from the speculations of Charles Darwin. He was far ahead of his time, and his work was absolutely wonderful, whether on finches or worms.

I always am amused at the thought of living organisms are created from nonliving matter.

This is purely using ones imagination and showing the faith needed to believe such a thing.

 

[antagon]

hint: living organisms are made from non-living matter.

 

[editec]

Why shouldn't they list it under religion?

its science

Is it? The idea behind the tree of life is based entirely on speculation.

Speculation supported by enormous amounts of supporting evidence and logical inference and deduction.

Aside from countless volumes of scientific method, of course, it is merely a theory.

Much like gravity is merely a theory.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I have some questions for you guys,why would a natural process to life think to create gender and sex organs ? Where did blood come from ? Why did only one organism wind up with the gift of speech and intelligence to reason ? Why does only one organism seem to have a conscience ? why does only one organism have the ability to speak fluently more than one language ?

Why is it that humans did not end up with animals superior eye sight ,sense of smell and their superior land speed ? oh don't forget the strength in some animals.

Simple answer is everything was created to be what they are.

 

[Youwerecreated]

hint: living organisms are made from non-living matter.

So you say, are blood cells non-living matter ?

The hair on your body is that non-living matter ?

The skin that holds everything together is that non-living matter ?

Is the heart made of non-living matter ?

What you have to ask yourself is what caused things to have the ability to adapt and or have a function.

 

[JBeukema]

Why shouldn't they list it under religion?

its science

Evolution is built on imagination and faith it's not science.

SNPs

 

[JBeukema]

The religious will tell you because all life was shimmered into being by the same Gawd.

The secularlist will say all life began from a bowl of soup.

American Trolling League
Rejected
​

We regret to inform you that your submission has been rejected. Your trolling is simply not up to ATL standards. USMB requires all trolls to be registered with the ATL and to have current ATL certification to ensure quality. In accordance with the Terms of Use and applicable rules, regulations, and standards, you are ordered to CEASE AND DESIST your activities until you are able to meet ATL standards and acquire certification.

Sincerely

James Beukema
Master Poe, American Trolling League

 

[JBeukema]

Darwin speculated on a primogenitor that is the source of all life on Earth. Since we know less than nothing about abiogenesis, the entire foundation of the tree of life is speculation. Additionally, most biologists look at life more like a vine than a tree, because the interrelationship between species is a lot more complicated and intertwined than a tree can accurately depict. Would you prefer outdated and obsolete to speculation?

Darwin speculated on the origin of life, a speculation backed up with the most profound understanding of life in existance at that time. Today we know a great deal more having built on the foundation that Darwin provided.

We know quite a bit more concerning abiogenisis than you state. From Fox's protocells to the building of complex molecules, even the source of the chirality in the molecules of life, a great deal has been discovered in the last few decades. Of course, we have much yet to discover, but the work is advancing rapidly. And it looks like the question is not what the path was, but which path was taken.

Yes, more like a vine or a bush than a tree. However, that takes absolutely nothing away from the speculations of Charles Darwin. He was far ahead of his time, and his work was absolutely wonderful, whether on finches or worms.

I always am amused at the thought of living organisms are created from nonliving matter.

This is purely using ones imagination and showing the faith needed to believe such a thing.

the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

 

[antagon]

hint: living organisms are made from non-living matter.

So you say, are blood cells non-living matter ?

The hair on your body is that non-living matter ?

The skin that holds everything together is that non-living matter ?

Is the heart made of non-living matter ?

What you have to ask yourself is what caused things to have the ability to adapt and or have a function.

"By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return." genesis 3:19

yes to your questions, each and severally. educate yourself.

 

[Youwerecreated]

hint: living organisms are made from non-living matter.

So you say, are blood cells non-living matter ?

The hair on your body is that non-living matter ?

The skin that holds everything together is that non-living matter ?

Is the heart made of non-living matter ?

What you have to ask yourself is what caused things to have the ability to adapt and or have a function.

"By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return." genesis 3:19

yes to your questions, each and severally. educate yourself.

All living organisms are made up of cells,are cells living matter ?

Oh i don't need to educate myself if that education is gonna teach me a natural process thought of all those things mentioned ,and not to mention it developed genders and sex organs for reproduction to keep its creation from dying off.

Everything is made up of matter, but how did non-living matter become living matter ?

How can this natural process assign functions to its creations ? example white blood cells.

Everything i mentioned shows design not a natural process.

 

[Youwerecreated]

hint: living organisms are made from non-living matter.

So you say, are blood cells non-living matter ?

The hair on your body is that non-living matter ?

The skin that holds everything together is that non-living matter ?

Is the heart made of non-living matter ?

What you have to ask yourself is what caused things to have the ability to adapt and or have a function.

"By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return." genesis 3:19

yes to your questions, each and severally. educate yourself.

I find your sarcasm entertaining.

Did all life come from ingredients of the earth or no ?

 

[antagon]

All living organisms are made up of cells,are cells living matter ?

Oh i don't need to educate myself if that education is gonna teach me a natural process thought of all those things mentioned

this is a problem. willful ignorance i'd call it.

do natural processes think in the first place? have you come to realize that we are made up from the matter that we ingest, and that whether it is alive or dead has little bearing on that facility?

 

[JBeukema]

So you say, are blood cells non-living matter ?

The hair on your body is that non-living matter ?

The skin that holds everything together is that non-living matter ?

Is the heart made of non-living matter ?

What you have to ask yourself is what caused things to have the ability to adapt and or have a function.

"By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return." genesis 3:19

yes to your questions, each and severally. educate yourself.

I find your sarcasm entertaining.

Did all life come from ingredients of the earth or no ?

A lot of it came from stars, actually.

Moby was right

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qdb4NyHdFfE[/ame]

 

[Sheldon]

Complexity of an organism doesn't automatically imply a creator. One of the amazing things about life on earth is the time scale. I think the oldest living organism is dated to ~3,500,000,000 years ago. That is a long ass time for things to develop. 3b years is incomprehensible.

 

[JBeukema]

Emergence is beyond their comprehension, Sheldon

 

[SmarterThanHick]

The secularlist will say all life began from a bowl of soup.

False. No one believes life came from a bowl of Campell's thick and chunky.

Why is it that humans did not end up with animals superior eye sight ,sense of smell and their superior land speed ? oh don't forget the strength in some animals.

Because you don't understand evolution? Lack of education will do that.

So you say, are blood cells non-living matter ?

Actually no, they're not. They have lost their nucleus. They can't divide or do anything else living cells do. They are sacks of protein that carry oxygen.

The hair on your body is that non-living matter ?

Also not living. It's simply protein.

The skin that holds everything together is that non-living matter ?

Top most layer is still not living matter. You're pretty good at this game of stabbing yourself in the foot.

Is the heart made of non-living matter ?

Ah you finally found something that is comprised of living tissue. Good job!

What you have to ask yourself is what caused things to have the ability to adapt and or have a function.

And you have to ask yourself what caused things to lose their ability and function. So why is it that you seem to have a complete deficiency in knowledge on this topic?

Oh i don't need to educate myself

Ah, I see you already answered my question. You don't need education, and yet you think your opinion has some value.

 

[Youwerecreated]

All living organisms are made up of cells,are cells living matter ?

Oh i don't need to educate myself if that education is gonna teach me a natural process thought of all those things mentioned

this is a problem. willful ignorance i'd call it.

do natural processes think in the first place? have you come to realize that we are made up from the matter that we ingest, and that whether it is alive or dead has little bearing on that facility?

I would say if we are the product of a natural process then yes the natural process for life would have to be a thinker.

Examples, it had to think to create blood to sustain life. It had to think to create red and white blood cells. It had to think to create the brain. It had to think to create genders and sex organs to keep life going. It had to think to create eyes that dilate because of light.

Yeah the natural process sounds like it was an intelligent designer.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The secularlist will say all life began from a bowl of soup.

False. No one believes life came from a bowl of Campell's thick and chunky.

Why is it that humans did not end up with animals superior eye sight ,sense of smell and their superior land speed ? oh don't forget the strength in some animals.

Because you don't understand evolution? Lack of education will do that.


Actually no, they're not. They have lost their nucleus. They can't divide or do anything else living cells do. They are sacks of protein that carry oxygen.


Also not living. It's simply protein.


Top most layer is still not living matter. You're pretty good at this game of stabbing yourself in the foot.


Ah you finally found something that is comprised of living tissue. Good job!

What you have to ask yourself is what caused things to have the ability to adapt and or have a function.

And you have to ask yourself what caused things to lose their ability and function. So why is it that you seem to have a complete deficiency in knowledge on this topic?

Oh i don't need to educate myself

Ah, I see you already answered my question. You don't need education, and yet you think your opinion has some value.

When did i say i wasn't educated ? you might want to check the depth of the water before you jump in.

 

[antagon]

All living organisms are made up of cells,are cells living matter ?

Oh i don't need to educate myself if that education is gonna teach me a natural process thought of all those things mentioned

this is a problem. willful ignorance i'd call it.

do natural processes think in the first place? have you come to realize that we are made up from the matter that we ingest, and that whether it is alive or dead has little bearing on that facility?

I would say if we are the product of a natural process then yes the natural process for life would have to be a thinker.

Examples, it had to think to create blood to sustain life. It had to think to create red and white blood cells. It had to think to create the brain. It had to think to create genders and sex organs to keep life going. It had to think to create eyes that dilate because of light.

Yeah the natural process sounds like it was an intelligent designer.

i think you've attributed a concept of human contemplation to the parts of nature which you find fascinating. this doesn't mean, however, that such projections of humanity on to other elements of nature are accurate.

examples, the movie antz is not a representation of the way ants socially interact, despite the ostensible plausability of their being english-speaking social organisms.

similarly, your attribution of human-like thought and design to processes in nature defies actual support on closer inspection. such inspection leads us to the conclusion that ants dont actually function like antz. similarly, the natural process which you describe as a designer in itself, is not a thinker or designer per sa.

 

[Sunni Man]

Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life

Now, what's "odd", BBC listed the program under "religion".

That's because it takes way more "Faith" to believe in the Theory of Evolution.

Than it takes to believe in even the most far out religion.