Origin of life - simplest possible form of life.

I found one older thread relevant to this - which I bumped/posted on (by ChemEngineer).

This subject is a huge subject of study - it will be hard to post all of the relevant details let alone document the experiments and what they prove (1 Thess. 5:21 - "prove all things" - KJV)

For starters, I will link to 2 of our brochures on this subject and invite you all to comment on any point therein - or any other point relevant to the origin of life:

Starting with our brochure entitled "Origin of Life - five questions worth asking: -


Second - our brochure entitled "Was Life Created?" -


I'll start off with one point from the first brochure:

"What do many scientists claim? Many who believe in evolution would tell you that billions of years ago, life began on the edge of an ancient tidal pool or deep in the ocean. They feel that in some such location, chemicals spontaneously assembled into bubblelike structures, formed complex molecules, and began replicating. They believe that all life on earth originated by accident from one or more of these “simple” original cells.

Other equally respected scientists who also support evolution disagree. They speculate that the first cells or at least their major components arrived on earth from outer space. Why? Because, despite their best efforts, scientists have been unable to prove that life can spring from nonliving molecules. In 2008, Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz highlighted the dilemma. He stated that over the last 50 years, “no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction.”1

Reference 1:

How Life Began—Evolution’s Three Geneses, by Alexandre Meinesz, translated by Daniel Simberloff, 2008, pp. 30-33, 45.

So, what do you all think about the evidence scientists have discovered? Feel free to post links - I love doing research!
You repeat a series of falsehoods and errors that are common among those who have an agenda to vilify science. Firstly, you need to understand that abiogenesis and biological evolution are different subjects. Biological evolution does not address the beginning of life.

There is no requirement for "belief" in biological evolution. The fossil evidence as it exists along with the supporting disciplines of biology, chemistry, earth science, etc., have been fully adequate to convince generation after generation of paleontologists of the reality of biological evolution, and stands as a major line of evidence for the theory of common descent. Anti-evolutionary critics (almost exclusively fundamentalist Christians), should take some time to explain why this should be so, given that paleontologists and biologists subscribe to many different religious beliefs.

So pragmatically, one is led to ask the question, when will the evidence be provided in a comprehensive way for a reliable conclusion of one or more gods to be drawn? Quite clearly, we are surrounded with tangible examples of where even our imperfect understanding of objective reality has been sufficient for science to revolutionize our world. Science has proven to be, beyond all competition, the single most successful, pervasive and impactful human endeavor in all of history. In contrast, claims to gawds is essentially useless for the any practical purpose of understanding what is true.

Holie - thank you getting us back on topic - however, as usual, you provide no documentation for your assertions. For example, you imply I do not understand the difference between abiogenesis (chemical evolution) and Darwinian (biological) evolution. However, you seem to not know the difference between micro-evolution (which is a fact) and macro-evolution (which is false speculation).
The fossil record proves micro-evolution as do more recent scientific discoveries (e.g. epigenetics). The fossil record runs contrary to both the phenomenon of Equilibrium (variation about a mean) which Dobzhansky observed in his studies of radiation induced mutations in fruit flies and also the fossil record.

Why do you think Gould, with his punctuated equilibrium model of evolution, called this macro-evolution (the fossil record proves the equilibrium part but not Gould's theory of the cause of the punctuation).

Abiogenesis and chemical evolution is on topic - the other points you bring up are really off topic- albeit interesting.

Would you believe I disagree with many of your conclusions? One reason is your lack of documentation - notice in contrast the documentation (bibliography) in the 2 brochures I linked to in OP.
I'm afraid you provide no supporting documentation for your opinions. My assertions about biological evolution derive from the sciences of paleontology, anthropology, geology, oceanography, physics, archaeology, and other branches of science that conflict with the Bible. If you have evidence for the existence of the Gods, evidence of the Gods creating humans 6,000 years ago, evidence of any Biblical miracles, please present that evidence.

We discriminate between ideas based on evidence and reason. There are a certain number of ideas in science in which we have such overwhelming evidence that confidence is of the highest attainable level. Biological evolution is one of those ideas. There will always be a significant number of people who for religious or philosophical reasons reject that idea. But there is a reason the argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy, because it tells us nothing about what is actually true.

I noted that you continue to be confused about terms such as abiogenesis (the beginning of biological life) and Darwinian (biological) evolution because your earlier post made no distinction between those two processes. As I noted previously, you confuse macro-evolution with speciation which has abundant evidence.





Here is some reference material yo better help you understand Dobzhansky's work.



2.2 The Biological Species Concept

Over the last few decades the theoretically preeminent species definition has been the biological species concept (BSC). This concept defines a species as a reproductive community.

2.2.1 History of the Biological Species Concept

The BSC has undergone a number of changes over the years. The earliest precursor that I could find was in Du Rietz 1930. Du Rietz defined a species as


"... the smallest natural populations permanently separated from each other by a distinct discontinuity in the series of biotypes."
Barriers to interbreeding are implicit in this definition and explicit in Du Rietz's dicussion of it.
A few years later, Dobzhansky defined a species as


"... that stage of evolutionary progress at which the once actually or potentially interbreeding array of forms becomes segregated into two or more separate arrays which are physiologically incapable of interbreeding." (Dobzhansky 1937)

It is important to note that this is a highly restrictive definition of species. It emphasizes experimental approaches and ignores what goes on in nature. By the publication of the third edition of the book this appeared in, Dobzhansky (1951) had relaxed this definition to the point that is substantially agreed with Mayr's.


The definition of a species that is accepted as the BSC was promulgated by Mayr (1942). He defined species as


"... groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups."

Note that the emphasis in this definition is on what happens in nature. Mayr later amended this definition to include an ecological component. In this form of the definition a species is


"... a reproductive community of populations (reproductively isolated from others) that occupies a specific niche in nature."

The BSC is most strongly accepted among vertebrate zoologists and entomologists. Two facts account for this. First, these are the groups that the authors of the BSC worked with :). (Note: Mayr is an ornithologist and Dobzhansky worked extensively with Drosophila). More importantly, obligate sexuality is the predominant form of reproduction in these groups. It is not coincidental that the BSC is less widely accepted among botanists. Terrestrial plants exhibit much greater diversity in their "mode of reproduction" than do vertebrates and insects.



Regarding Gould and theory of Punctuated Equilibria, Let's go to the source, shall we?
"Evolution as Fact and Theory", originally published in 1981:

[T]ransitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common -- and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. [He then discusses two examples: therapsid intermediaries between reptiles and mammals, and the half-dozen human species - found as of 1981 - that appear in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features.]
Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am -- for I have become a major target of these practices.
I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record -- geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis) -- reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond . . .
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
- Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.

I'm afraid your charge of "lack of documentation" is quite obviously false. On the other hand, I've consistently asked the creationists for their General Theory of Supernatural Creation, but alas, that hasn't happened.

Thank you for providing some documentation for your beliefs. Not sure what they have to do with thread title however.

But concerning your tangent on speciation:

As I have posted repeatedly: we are not creationists and we do believe in speciation within the Biblical kind.

Also, the definition of species is not as simple as you reference. Take the Cat kind for example - how many species in the Cat kind?


"Feline, (family Felidae), any of 37 cat species that among others include the cheetah, puma, jaguar, leopard, lion, lynx, tiger, and domestic cat."


"Felidae - Cats, Cheetahs, Lions, Tigers, Leopards, Ocelot.
There are 36 species of cats in this family."


"21 Rare Wild Cat Species You Probably Didn’t Know Exist"

See the pictures of these 21 cat species - are you sure they cannot interbreed?

For example:

Serval (Leptailurus Serval)
Kodkod (Leopardus Guigna)
Chinese Mountain Cat (Felis Bieti)
Pallas Cat (Otocolobus Manul)
Caracal (Caracal Caracal)
Clouded Leopard (Neofelis Nebulosa)
Jaguarundi
Leopard Cat (Prionailurus Bengalensis)
Fishing Cat (Prionailurus Viverrinus)
Bay Cat (Catopuma Badia)

Take for example: Rusty Spotted Cat (Prionailurus Rubiginosus)


"Common Name: Rusty Spotted Cat
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata (Vertebrata)
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Felidae
Genus: Felinae (Prionailurus)
Species: rubiginosus"


rustyspottedcat1.jpg










Are you sure this is really a species of cat not able to interbreed with other cats?
 
I found one older thread relevant to this - which I bumped/posted on (by ChemEngineer).

This subject is a huge subject of study - it will be hard to post all of the relevant details let alone document the experiments and what they prove (1 Thess. 5:21 - "prove all things" - KJV)

For starters, I will link to 2 of our brochures on this subject and invite you all to comment on any point therein - or any other point relevant to the origin of life:

Starting with our brochure entitled "Origin of Life - five questions worth asking: -


Second - our brochure entitled "Was Life Created?" -


I'll start off with one point from the first brochure:

"What do many scientists claim? Many who believe in evolution would tell you that billions of years ago, life began on the edge of an ancient tidal pool or deep in the ocean. They feel that in some such location, chemicals spontaneously assembled into bubblelike structures, formed complex molecules, and began replicating. They believe that all life on earth originated by accident from one or more of these “simple” original cells.

Other equally respected scientists who also support evolution disagree. They speculate that the first cells or at least their major components arrived on earth from outer space. Why? Because, despite their best efforts, scientists have been unable to prove that life can spring from nonliving molecules. In 2008, Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz highlighted the dilemma. He stated that over the last 50 years, “no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction.”1

Reference 1:

How Life Began—Evolution’s Three Geneses, by Alexandre Meinesz, translated by Daniel Simberloff, 2008, pp. 30-33, 45.

So, what do you all think about the evidence scientists have discovered? Feel free to post links - I love doing research!
That is one of the fundamental reasons I believe in A God. I have never seen any evidence that life can spring forth spontaneously from a gob of sea foam. If scientists believe that, then go into a lab and create it.
..for your ''theory'' [ hahahahah ]--you have to prove there is a god, first--and you can't do that
 
That is one of the fundamental reasons I believe in A God. I have never seen any evidence that life can spring forth spontaneously from a gob of sea foam. If scientists believe that, then go into a lab and create it.
That is one of the fundamental reasons I don't believe in A God. I have never seen any evidence of god
 
What was it you did not understand about the Lord God creating man from as fine particles of earth but in his image?
What was it you did not understand about you can't prove there is a god? first, you have to prove there is a god
 
I found one older thread relevant to this - which I bumped/posted on (by ChemEngineer).

This subject is a huge subject of study - it will be hard to post all of the relevant details let alone document the experiments and what they prove (1 Thess. 5:21 - "prove all things" - KJV)

For starters, I will link to 2 of our brochures on this subject and invite you all to comment on any point therein - or any other point relevant to the origin of life:

Starting with our brochure entitled "Origin of Life - five questions worth asking: -


Second - our brochure entitled "Was Life Created?" -


I'll start off with one point from the first brochure:

"What do many scientists claim? Many who believe in evolution would tell you that billions of years ago, life began on the edge of an ancient tidal pool or deep in the ocean. They feel that in some such location, chemicals spontaneously assembled into bubblelike structures, formed complex molecules, and began replicating. They believe that all life on earth originated by accident from one or more of these “simple” original cells.

Other equally respected scientists who also support evolution disagree. They speculate that the first cells or at least their major components arrived on earth from outer space. Why? Because, despite their best efforts, scientists have been unable to prove that life can spring from nonliving molecules. In 2008, Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz highlighted the dilemma. He stated that over the last 50 years, “no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction.”1

Reference 1:

How Life Began—Evolution’s Three Geneses, by Alexandre Meinesz, translated by Daniel Simberloff, 2008, pp. 30-33, 45.

So, what do you all think about the evidence scientists have discovered? Feel free to post links - I love doing research!
What was it you did not understand about the Lord God creating man from as fine particles of earth but in his image? It doesn't say HOW God did it, and somehow that he waved a magic wand and produced a man just doesn't conform to the creation of a man. We are a miracle in this world, and we're supposed to be good stewards over all the animals of the earth. Checking out the pictures I've seen of thousands of square miles of ocean covered in plastics, we somehow haven't respected the job we were given, and in fact, numerous species of whales are waning because of our neglect of the open oceans that got littered with the plastics du jour.

Eden was a paradise. These pictures are inconsistent with makind's obligation to be good stewards of the earth:

View attachment 333736 View attachment 333737

View attachment 333739 View attachment 333740

We must act or many of our sister and brother creatures will die in our delinquent neglect to pick up after ourselves.

Ocean map of plastic goo:
View attachment 333743
THERE it is .....that's your ''theory''' [ hahaahaha] = god just did it
WOW ..a very detailed theory there
 
The simplest forms of life are the elements that comprise the periodic table.

In harmony with Genesis where man was created from the dust of the ground. All the elements in the human body are also in earth's soil.

But there are also simple very complex forms of life in the soil.

So, what is the simplest form of life known - or speculated about?

For starters, a cell wall/membrane is required. Most don't realize how complex this is. From our brochure:


"Some of these proteins (1) have a hole through the middle of them that allows only specific types of molecules in and out of the cell. Other proteins are open on one side of the cell membrane (2) and closed on the other. They have a docking site (3) shaped to fit a specific substance. When that substance docks, the other end of the protein opens and releases the cargo through the membrane (4). All this activity is happening on the surface of even the simplest of cells."

A cell membrane

The cell membrane has “security guards” that allow only specific substances to pass in or out
 
I found one older thread relevant to this - which I bumped/posted on (by ChemEngineer).

This subject is a huge subject of study - it will be hard to post all of the relevant details let alone document the experiments and what they prove (1 Thess. 5:21 - "prove all things" - KJV)

For starters, I will link to 2 of our brochures on this subject and invite you all to comment on any point therein - or any other point relevant to the origin of life:

Starting with our brochure entitled "Origin of Life - five questions worth asking: -


Second - our brochure entitled "Was Life Created?" -


I'll start off with one point from the first brochure:

"What do many scientists claim? Many who believe in evolution would tell you that billions of years ago, life began on the edge of an ancient tidal pool or deep in the ocean. They feel that in some such location, chemicals spontaneously assembled into bubblelike structures, formed complex molecules, and began replicating. They believe that all life on earth originated by accident from one or more of these “simple” original cells.

Other equally respected scientists who also support evolution disagree. They speculate that the first cells or at least their major components arrived on earth from outer space. Why? Because, despite their best efforts, scientists have been unable to prove that life can spring from nonliving molecules. In 2008, Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz highlighted the dilemma. He stated that over the last 50 years, “no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction.”1

Reference 1:

How Life Began—Evolution’s Three Geneses, by Alexandre Meinesz, translated by Daniel Simberloff, 2008, pp. 30-33, 45.

So, what do you all think about the evidence scientists have discovered? Feel free to post links - I love doing research!
You repeat a series of falsehoods and errors that are common among those who have an agenda to vilify science. Firstly, you need to understand that abiogenesis and biological evolution are different subjects. Biological evolution does not address the beginning of life.

There is no requirement for "belief" in biological evolution. The fossil evidence as it exists along with the supporting disciplines of biology, chemistry, earth science, etc., have been fully adequate to convince generation after generation of paleontologists of the reality of biological evolution, and stands as a major line of evidence for the theory of common descent. Anti-evolutionary critics (almost exclusively fundamentalist Christians), should take some time to explain why this should be so, given that paleontologists and biologists subscribe to many different religious beliefs.

So pragmatically, one is led to ask the question, when will the evidence be provided in a comprehensive way for a reliable conclusion of one or more gods to be drawn? Quite clearly, we are surrounded with tangible examples of where even our imperfect understanding of objective reality has been sufficient for science to revolutionize our world. Science has proven to be, beyond all competition, the single most successful, pervasive and impactful human endeavor in all of history. In contrast, claims to gawds is essentially useless for the any practical purpose of understanding what is true.

Holie - thank you getting us back on topic - however, as usual, you provide no documentation for your assertions. For example, you imply I do not understand the difference between abiogenesis (chemical evolution) and Darwinian (biological) evolution. However, you seem to not know the difference between micro-evolution (which is a fact) and macro-evolution (which is false speculation).
The fossil record proves micro-evolution as do more recent scientific discoveries (e.g. epigenetics). The fossil record runs contrary to both the phenomenon of Equilibrium (variation about a mean) which Dobzhansky observed in his studies of radiation induced mutations in fruit flies and also the fossil record.

Why do you think Gould, with his punctuated equilibrium model of evolution, called this macro-evolution (the fossil record proves the equilibrium part but not Gould's theory of the cause of the punctuation).

Abiogenesis and chemical evolution is on topic - the other points you bring up are really off topic- albeit interesting.

Would you believe I disagree with many of your conclusions? One reason is your lack of documentation - notice in contrast the documentation (bibliography) in the 2 brochures I linked to in OP.
I'm afraid you provide no supporting documentation for your opinions. My assertions about biological evolution derive from the sciences of paleontology, anthropology, geology, oceanography, physics, archaeology, and other branches of science that conflict with the Bible. If you have evidence for the existence of the Gods, evidence of the Gods creating humans 6,000 years ago, evidence of any Biblical miracles, please present that evidence.

We discriminate between ideas based on evidence and reason. There are a certain number of ideas in science in which we have such overwhelming evidence that confidence is of the highest attainable level. Biological evolution is one of those ideas. There will always be a significant number of people who for religious or philosophical reasons reject that idea. But there is a reason the argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy, because it tells us nothing about what is actually true.

I noted that you continue to be confused about terms such as abiogenesis (the beginning of biological life) and Darwinian (biological) evolution because your earlier post made no distinction between those two processes. As I noted previously, you confuse macro-evolution with speciation which has abundant evidence.





Here is some reference material yo better help you understand Dobzhansky's work.



2.2 The Biological Species Concept

Over the last few decades the theoretically preeminent species definition has been the biological species concept (BSC). This concept defines a species as a reproductive community.

2.2.1 History of the Biological Species Concept

The BSC has undergone a number of changes over the years. The earliest precursor that I could find was in Du Rietz 1930. Du Rietz defined a species as


"... the smallest natural populations permanently separated from each other by a distinct discontinuity in the series of biotypes."
Barriers to interbreeding are implicit in this definition and explicit in Du Rietz's dicussion of it.
A few years later, Dobzhansky defined a species as


"... that stage of evolutionary progress at which the once actually or potentially interbreeding array of forms becomes segregated into two or more separate arrays which are physiologically incapable of interbreeding." (Dobzhansky 1937)

It is important to note that this is a highly restrictive definition of species. It emphasizes experimental approaches and ignores what goes on in nature. By the publication of the third edition of the book this appeared in, Dobzhansky (1951) had relaxed this definition to the point that is substantially agreed with Mayr's.


The definition of a species that is accepted as the BSC was promulgated by Mayr (1942). He defined species as


"... groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups."

Note that the emphasis in this definition is on what happens in nature. Mayr later amended this definition to include an ecological component. In this form of the definition a species is


"... a reproductive community of populations (reproductively isolated from others) that occupies a specific niche in nature."

The BSC is most strongly accepted among vertebrate zoologists and entomologists. Two facts account for this. First, these are the groups that the authors of the BSC worked with :). (Note: Mayr is an ornithologist and Dobzhansky worked extensively with Drosophila). More importantly, obligate sexuality is the predominant form of reproduction in these groups. It is not coincidental that the BSC is less widely accepted among botanists. Terrestrial plants exhibit much greater diversity in their "mode of reproduction" than do vertebrates and insects.



Regarding Gould and theory of Punctuated Equilibria, Let's go to the source, shall we?
"Evolution as Fact and Theory", originally published in 1981:

[T]ransitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common -- and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. [He then discusses two examples: therapsid intermediaries between reptiles and mammals, and the half-dozen human species - found as of 1981 - that appear in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features.]
Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am -- for I have become a major target of these practices.
I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record -- geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis) -- reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond . . .
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
- Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.

I'm afraid your charge of "lack of documentation" is quite obviously false. On the other hand, I've consistently asked the creationists for their General Theory of Supernatural Creation, but alas, that hasn't happened.

Thank you for providing some documentation for your beliefs. Not sure what they have to do with thread title however.

But concerning your tangent on speciation:

As I have posted repeatedly: we are not creationists and we do believe in speciation within the Biblical kind.

Also, the definition of species is not as simple as you reference. Take the Cat kind for example - how many species in the Cat kind?


"Feline, (family Felidae), any of 37 cat species that among others include the cheetah, puma, jaguar, leopard, lion, lynx, tiger, and domestic cat."


"Felidae - Cats, Cheetahs, Lions, Tigers, Leopards, Ocelot.
There are 36 species of cats in this family."


"21 Rare Wild Cat Species You Probably Didn’t Know Exist"

See the pictures of these 21 cat species - are you sure they cannot interbreed?

For example:

Serval (Leptailurus Serval)
Kodkod (Leopardus Guigna)
Chinese Mountain Cat (Felis Bieti)
Pallas Cat (Otocolobus Manul)
Caracal (Caracal Caracal)
Clouded Leopard (Neofelis Nebulosa)
Jaguarundi
Leopard Cat (Prionailurus Bengalensis)
Fishing Cat (Prionailurus Viverrinus)
Bay Cat (Catopuma Badia)

Take for example: Rusty Spotted Cat (Prionailurus Rubiginosus)


"Common Name: Rusty Spotted Cat
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata (Vertebrata)
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Felidae
Genus: Felinae (Prionailurus)
Species: rubiginosus"


rustyspottedcat1.jpg











Are you sure this is really a species of cat not able to interbreed with other cats?

All the cat pictures were entertaining but I'm not sure of the purpose. While I understand your hope to separate your arguments from the creationists, I have to note that your arguments are not just consistent with creation websites, they are identical.

I've supplied quite a number of relevant links and references to establish the clear evidence of speciation. I understand the science will clash with biblical tales of "kinds", Arks and supernaturalism, but posting pictures of cats doesn't refute the science.

In the 1870's, paleontologist O.C. Marsh published a description of newly discovered horse fossils from North America. At the time, (the very young sciences of biology, paleontology, etc,) very few transitional fossils were known, apart from Archeopteryx. The sequence of horse fossils that Marsh described (and that T.H. Huxley popularized) was a striking example of evolution taking place in a single lineage. Within the fossil record one could see the fossil species "Eohippus" (a odd-toed hoofed mammal) transformed into an almost totally different-looking (and very familiar) descendent, Equus, through a series of clear intermediates. Years later, the American Museum of Natural History assembled an exhibit of these fossil horses, designed to show gradual evolution from "Eohippus" (now called Hyracotherium) to modern Equus. Such exhibits focussed attention on the horse family not only as evidence for speciation but also specifically as a model of gradual evolution.
 
The simplest forms of life are the elements that comprise the periodic table.

In harmony with Genesis where man was created from the dust of the ground. All the elements in the human body are also in earth's soil.

But there are also simple very complex forms of life in the soil.

So, what is the simplest form of life known - or speculated about?

For starters, a cell wall/membrane is required. Most don't realize how complex this is. From our brochure:


"Some of these proteins (1) have a hole through the middle of them that allows only specific types of molecules in and out of the cell. Other proteins are open on one side of the cell membrane (2) and closed on the other. They have a docking site (3) shaped to fit a specific substance. When that substance docks, the other end of the protein opens and releases the cargo through the membrane (4). All this activity is happening on the surface of even the simplest of cells."

A cell membrane

The cell membrane has “security guards” that allow only specific substances to pass in or out

It's important to note that the elements in the earth's soil that are represented in chemical elements thst are produced by the explosions of stars.


The Genesis fable, while accounting for a 6,000 year old planet and supernaturalism as the means for existence of the planet and all life thereon, tends to clash with a known universe billions of years old and the basic building blocks of life forming by purely natural mechanisms.

Has the JW brochure you posted been submitted for peer review?
 
The simplest forms of life are the elements that comprise the periodic table.

In harmony with Genesis where man was created from the dust of the ground. All the elements in the human body are also in earth's soil.

But there are also simple very complex forms of life in the soil.

So, what is the simplest form of life known - or speculated about?

For starters, a cell wall/membrane is required. Most don't realize how complex this is. From our brochure:


"Some of these proteins (1) have a hole through the middle of them that allows only specific types of molecules in and out of the cell. Other proteins are open on one side of the cell membrane (2) and closed on the other. They have a docking site (3) shaped to fit a specific substance. When that substance docks, the other end of the protein opens and releases the cargo through the membrane (4). All this activity is happening on the surface of even the simplest of cells."

A cell membrane

The cell membrane has “security guards” that allow only specific substances to pass in or out
So, what is the simplest form of life known - or speculated about?
.
sorry you reject the elements as the first life of the universe, I disagree they are not living ...

1589476586614.png


are they physiological, perhaps not.


Also, the definition of species is not as simple as you reference.
The cell membrane has “security guards” that allow only specific substances to pass in or out
.
few may agree physiology is a metaphysical substance not native to planet Earth or that the substance does not exist without its specific spiritual content. how that would be as simply inanimate blobs and where that may be is yet for them not answered - without spiritual content.

I think it is you who does not appreciate the definition of speciation. as that if there is a single cell and also a multisubdivided siglecelular organism, a cat they are physiologically identical. the speciation is the direction the spiritual content is directing the physiological development from parent to sibling and its purpose for doing so. what else would be responsible for the physiological development, it is doubtful it is the physiology itself.

speciation is simply the expressed spiritual content of the physiology that undoubtedly has unlimited variations and potentials. and is not a big deal. - and for this forum would also be bound by the religion of antiquity.

* just a side question, did they, miller experiment, expect their organism when created to have an appetite.
 
Hollie - The cat pictures showed different species of the cat 'kind' (Biblical kind). Reminding you that we believe in microevolution which includes speciation within the boundaries of the phenomenon of "equilibrium" as Dobshansky observed in his extensive research of radiation induced mutations in the fruit fly (Drosophila).
 
Protocells, as they are called, are not life. What is the simplest form of life observed by scientists?
 
Hollie - The cat pictures showed different species of the cat 'kind' (Biblical kind). Reminding you that we believe in microevolution which includes speciation within the boundaries of the phenomenon of "equilibrium" as Dobshansky observed in his extensive research of radiation induced mutations in the fruit fly (Drosophila).
I have to note that creationists have been unable to specify what the created ''kinds'' are. If kinds were unique, it should be easy to distinguish between them. Instead, we find a nested hierarchy of similarities with kinds within kinds within kinds. Among the cat pictures you posted, which was the cat that most closely resembled those which Noah put on the Ark? How do you account for the diversity of cat "kinds" in just a few thousand years? Consider, the two-spotted ladybug could be placed in the two-spotted ladybug kind, the ladybug kind, the beetle kind, the insect kind, or any of dozens of other kinds of kinds, depending on how inclusive the kind is. No matter where you set the cutoff for how inclusive a kind is, there will be many groups just bordering on that cutoff. This pattern exactly matches the pattern expected of evolution. It does not match what creationism predicts.
 
Hollie - The cat pictures showed different species of the cat 'kind' (Biblical kind). Reminding you that we believe in microevolution which includes speciation within the boundaries of the phenomenon of "equilibrium" as Dobshansky observed in his extensive research of radiation induced mutations in the fruit fly (Drosophila).
I have to note that creationists have been unable to specify what the created ''kinds'' are. If kinds were unique, it should be easy to distinguish between them. Instead, we find a nested hierarchy of similarities with kinds within kinds within kinds. Among the cat pictures you posted, which was the cat that most closely resembled those which Noah put on the Ark? How do you account for the diversity of cat "kinds" in just a few thousand years? Consider, the two-spotted ladybug could be placed in the two-spotted ladybug kind, the ladybug kind, the beetle kind, the insect kind, or any of dozens of other kinds of kinds, depending on how inclusive the kind is. No matter where you set the cutoff for how inclusive a kind is, there will be many groups just bordering on that cutoff. This pattern exactly matches the pattern expected of evolution. It does not match what creationism predicts.

Well, you sure do have a hard time reading what i have posted - I tell you again. WE ARE NOT CREATIONISTS.

OK, so we are off topic - it happens on many threads. I believe all species of cats came from 2 cats on Noah's ark - though I am not sure of that. What my religion does teach and i am sure about is that many species came from few kinds on Noah's ark.

We believe in speciation - most creationists do not believe in speciation

So, lets see if I can pin you down - do you believe different species of cats can interbreed - can you point to any actual scientific observations on this?

I know you don't like links - perhaps you prefer missing links?

I like links including lynx [there are 4 species of lynx btw.]:


Excerpts:

"A tigon (/ˈtaɪɡən/) or tiglon (/ˈtaɪɡlən/) is the hybrid offspring of a male tiger (Panthera tigris) and a female lion (Panthera leo) thus, it has parents with the same genus, but of different species. A pairing of a male lion with a female tiger is called a liger, also by portmanteau.....

"Reports also exist of the similar titigon /ˌtaɪˈtaɪɡən/, resulting from the cross between a female tigon and a male tiger. Titigons resemble golden tigers, but with less contrast in their markings. A tigoness born in 1978, named Noelle, shared an enclosure in the Shambala Preserve with a male Siberian tiger called Anton, due to the keepers' belief that she was sterile. In 1983 Noelle produced a titigon named Nathaniel. As Nathaniel was three - quarters tiger, he had darker stripes than Noelle and vocalized more like a tiger, rather than with the mix of sounds used by his mother. Being only about quarter-lion, Nathaniel did not grow a mane."

So the older belief was that tiglons and ligers were sterile. Observations have proven otherwise.

We prefer the evidence of scientific research over traditional beliefs (e.g. macro-evolution). We are not dogmatic on whether all cat species came from 2 cats - that is a subject for genetic research.

However, concerning your doubts about rapid microevolution, epigenetic research shows much more rapid evolution than point mutations on the DNA.

For example, the change in skull shape and dog snout in the Bull Terrier in a mere 40 years. If these were fossil skulls paleontologists would have assumed such skull changes took millions of years.

However, it has been shown that tandem repeat sequences cause morphological changes (evolution) 100,000 times faster than point mutations on the DNA! And this is micro-evolution not macro-evolution.
 
Hollie - The cat pictures showed different species of the cat 'kind' (Biblical kind). Reminding you that we believe in microevolution which includes speciation within the boundaries of the phenomenon of "equilibrium" as Dobshansky observed in his extensive research of radiation induced mutations in the fruit fly (Drosophila).
I have to note that creationists have been unable to specify what the created ''kinds'' are. If kinds were unique, it should be easy to distinguish between them. Instead, we find a nested hierarchy of similarities with kinds within kinds within kinds. Among the cat pictures you posted, which was the cat that most closely resembled those which Noah put on the Ark? How do you account for the diversity of cat "kinds" in just a few thousand years? Consider, the two-spotted ladybug could be placed in the two-spotted ladybug kind, the ladybug kind, the beetle kind, the insect kind, or any of dozens of other kinds of kinds, depending on how inclusive the kind is. No matter where you set the cutoff for how inclusive a kind is, there will be many groups just bordering on that cutoff. This pattern exactly matches the pattern expected of evolution. It does not match what creationism predicts.

Well, you sure do have a hard time reading what i have posted - I tell you again. WE ARE NOT CREATIONISTS.

OK, so we are off topic - it happens on many threads. I believe all species of cats came from 2 cats on Noah's ark - though I am not sure of that. What my religion does teach and i am sure about is that many species came from few kinds on Noah's ark.

We believe in speciation - most creationists do not believe in speciation

So, lets see if I can pin you down - do you believe different species of cats can interbreed - can you point to any actual scientific observations on this?

I know you don't like links - perhaps you prefer missing links?

I like links including lynx [there are 4 species of lynx btw.]:


Excerpts:

"A tigon (/ˈtaɪɡən/) or tiglon (/ˈtaɪɡlən/) is the hybrid offspring of a male tiger (Panthera tigris) and a female lion (Panthera leo) thus, it has parents with the same genus, but of different species. A pairing of a male lion with a female tiger is called a liger, also by portmanteau.....

"Reports also exist of the similar titigon /ˌtaɪˈtaɪɡən/, resulting from the cross between a female tigon and a male tiger. Titigons resemble golden tigers, but with less contrast in their markings. A tigoness born in 1978, named Noelle, shared an enclosure in the Shambala Preserve with a male Siberian tiger called Anton, due to the keepers' belief that she was sterile. In 1983 Noelle produced a titigon named Nathaniel. As Nathaniel was three - quarters tiger, he had darker stripes than Noelle and vocalized more like a tiger, rather than with the mix of sounds used by his mother. Being only about quarter-lion, Nathaniel did not grow a mane."

So the older belief was that tiglons and ligers were sterile. Observations have proven otherwise.

We prefer the evidence of scientific research over traditional beliefs (e.g. macro-evolution). We are not dogmatic on whether all cat species came from 2 cats - that is a subject for genetic research.

However, concerning your doubts about rapid microevolution, epigenetic research shows much more rapid evolution than point mutations on the DNA.

For example, the change in skull shape and dog snout in the Bull Terrier in a mere 40 years. If these were fossil skulls paleontologists would have assumed such skull changes took millions of years.

However, it has been shown that tandem repeat sequences cause morphological changes (evolution) 100,000 times faster than point mutations on the DNA! And this is micro-evolution not macro-evolution.
I'm not clear why you insist that the JW's are not creationists when your arguments are identical to those presented as creationist dogma.

It seems you're still struggling a bit with what creationists call micro and macro evolution. Whether or not creationists want to use the term macroevolution vs speciation, the fact remains: there are many examples of transitional fossils between major groups of biological organisms. Even if you dispute all the interpretations that have been presented, and acknowledging that the fossil record is not perfect, the morphological data show trends are unmistakable.

Of course, if you have data to support the creationist claim that the diversity of life on the planet is the result of a few thousand years of biological history since Noah's pleasure cruise, please present that data.

Here is a description that may help.


What is macroevolution?
First, we have to get the definitions right. The following terms are defined: macroevolution, microevolution, cladogenesis, anagenesis, punctuated equilibrium theory, phyletic gradualism

Creationists often assert that "macroevolution" is not proven, even if "microevolution" is, and by this they seem to mean that whatever evolution is observed is microevolution, but the rest is macroevolution. In making these claims they are misusing authentic scientific terms; that is, they have a non-standard definition, which they use to make science appear to be saying something other than it is. Evolution proponents often say that creationists invented the terms. This is false. Both macroevolution and microevolution are legitimate scientific terms, which have a history of changing meanings that, in any case, fail to underpin creationism.

In science, macro at the beginning of a word just means "big", and micro at the beginning of a word just means "small" (both from the Greek words). For example, "macrofauna" means big animals, observable by the naked eye, while "microfauna" means small animals, which may be observable or may not without a microscope. Something can be "macro" by just being bigger, or there can be a transition that makes it something quite distinct.

In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [note 1]). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.

Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species. It can also apply to changes within species that are not genetic.

Another way to state the difference is that macroevolution is between-species evolution and microevolution is within-species evolution. Sometimes, macroevolution is called "supraspecific evolution" (Rensch 1959, see Hennig 1966: 223-225).
 

Forum List

Back
Top