TWD 74 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Canines evolved to different canines, felines to different felines. That is life creating life.

How did space dust create life?

---

As we are talking about eons and eons in the past, perhaps a little Sangria and the Doobie Brothers...

---

Perhaps a Doobie and the Doobie Brothers?

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Canines evolved to different canines, felines to different felines. That is life creating life.

How did space dust create life?

---

There are a variety of theories; evolution is not one of them. Evolution is about adaptive change after life came about. Cats and dogs do not create new life, they create new forms of cats and dogs, mostly with human input.

---

Wow! You and I agree

quash said:

---

Evolution is about survival. Cockroaches are a great example.

---

Something had to level down over time. How else could the floors around men's bathroom urinals get cleaned?

Oldbear83 said:

---

"Just try taking it away from us, though..."


By things like, hmmm, unelected officials shutting down the economy, individual politicians declaring churches may not hold services, courts are denied the exercise of cases by a Governor's decree, and so on?

Far too many people allowed those things to happen without complaint.

---

All of the actions above are action of State officials. What each state does regarding their elections, health emergencies, etc. are not the normal business of the Federal Government. What the US Constitution does allow for ? US Courts may be called upon when the states are deemed to interfere unnecessarily with individuals rights as guaranteed by the Constitution.
A lot of folks are mad at Governors for either following CDC guidelines or ignoring them. One could argue that we might have been better off if we were moving in the same direction... as that might require us to go full out John Adams, giving all power to the Federal, I prefer the present system.

TWD 74 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"Just try taking it away from us, though..."


By things like, hmmm, unelected officials shutting down the economy, individual politicians declaring churches may not hold services, courts are denied the exercise of cases by a Governor's decree, and so on?

Far too many people allowed those things to happen without complaint.

---

All of the actions above are action of State officials. What each state does regarding their elections, health emergencies, etc. are not the normal business of the Federal Government. What the US Constitution does allow for ? US Courts may be called upon when the states are deemed to interfere unnecessarily with individuals rights as guaranteed by the Constitution.
A lot of folks are mad at Governors for either following CDC guidelines or ignoring them. One could argue that we might have been better off if we were moving in the same direction... as that might require us to go full out John Adams, giving all power to the Federal, I prefer the present system.

---

Just do as you are told.

I seem to recall a few men, names like Paine, Webster, and such, who differed with the idea that we should be sheep ruled by wolves.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Canines evolved to different canines, felines to different felines. That is life creating life.

How did space dust create life?

---

Star dust. All of the matter of you're composed of comes from elements, and produced from stars and super novas.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Canines evolved to different canines, felines to different felines. That is life creating life.

How did space dust create life?

---

There are a variety of theories; evolution is not one of them. Evolution is about adaptive change after life came about. Cats and dogs do not create new life, they create new forms of cats and dogs, mostly with human input.

---

Wow! You and I agree

---

I don't think so. You said life created life and I said they do not.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TWD 74 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"Just try taking it away from us, though..."


By things like, hmmm, unelected officials shutting down the economy, individual politicians declaring churches may not hold services, courts are denied the exercise of cases by a Governor's decree, and so on?

Far too many people allowed those things to happen without complaint.

---

All of the actions above are action of State officials. What each state does regarding their elections, health emergencies, etc. are not the normal business of the Federal Government. What the US Constitution does allow for ? US Courts may be called upon when the states are deemed to interfere unnecessarily with individuals rights as guaranteed by the Constitution.
A lot of folks are mad at Governors for either following CDC guidelines or ignoring them. One could argue that we might have been better off if we were moving in the same direction... as that might require us to go full out John Adams, giving all power to the Federal, I prefer the present system.

---

Just do as you are told.

I seem to recall a few men, names like Paine, Webster, and such, who differed with the idea that we should be sheep ruled by wolves.

---

See Webster's response to John Calhoun,

But I do not admit that, under the Constitution and in conformity with it, there is any mode in which a state government, as a member of the Union, can interfere and stop the progress of the general government, by force of her own laws, under any circumstance whatever. ... This absurdity (for it seems no less) arises from a misconception as to the origin of this government and its true character. It is, sir, the people's Constitution, the people's government, made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people. The people of the United States have declared that this Constitution shall be the supreme law. We must either admit the proposition or dispute their authority. The states are, unquestionably, sovereign, so far as their sovereignty is not affected by this supreme law. But the state legislatures, as political bodies, however sovereign, are yet not sovereign over the people. So far as the people have given power to the general government, so far the grant is unquestionably good, and the government holds of the people and not of the state governments. We are all agents of the same supreme power, the people. The general government and the state governments derive their authority from the same source. Neither can, in relation to the other, be called primary, though one is definite and restricted, and the other general and residuary. The national government possesses those powers, which it can be shown the people have conferred on it, and no more. All the rest belongs to the state governments, or to the people themselves. So far as the people have restrained state sovereignty, by the expression of their will, in the Constitution of the United States, so far, it must be admitted, state sovereignty is effectually controlled.

They have flying roaches now, scary stuff

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Canines evolved to different canines, felines to different felines. That is life creating life.

How did space dust create life?

---

Except for when animals that weren't canines and weren't felines evolved into both canines and felines. Along with bears, raccoons, and assorted other carnivores.

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Canines evolved to different canines, felines to different felines. That is life creating life.

How did space dust create life?

---

There are a variety of theories; evolution is not one of them. Evolution is about adaptive change after life came about. Cats and dogs do not create new life, they create new forms of cats and dogs, mostly with human input.

---

Wow! You and I agree

---

I don't think so. You said life created life and I said they do not.

---

beget? give rise to; bring about.

Baylor3216 said:

---

Can't cockroaches, after 4+ billion years of evolving and improving, find a way to get off their back?

---

Cockroaches are only 200-300 million years old, give 'em some time.

*Fixed what I assumed was a typo in your question

Is single-cell life irreducibly complex? If not, explain how it came into being. If so, explain how it came into being.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Is single-cell life irreducibly complex? If not, explain how it came into being. If so, explain how it came into being.

---

Are you asking me, or someone else? If me, no, a cell is not irreducibly complex, nor do I think most hardcore Creationists (who are the only people I know to frequently use that term) would say it is, as it's easily reducible (functional in some way without all of its components).

I think if you want to discuss the evolution of cells, you must start by acknowledging that cells themselves have undergone a tremendous amount of evolution; the common animal cell today is vastly different from the first "cell" on the planet. But the components that make up simple cells are not particularly difficult to come by on a wet, warm-ish planet. For example, one extremely important component of any cell is a partitioning membrane that separates the external environment from the internal environment. Phospholipids readily assemble into such closed membranes because of the difference in the hydrophobic and hydrophilic ends of their molecular structure. That membrane is the beginning of one component of a cell, and one of the most important.

A different, more rigorous argument for "irreducible complexity" has long been single components of many bacterial cells, like mitochondria or flagella. The gist of that argument, greatly simplified for the sake of being succinct, is that the various components are all necessary at the same time to form a functional mitochondrion or flagellum, and without any one, the mitochondrion/ flagellum does not function. The error is to assume that those various components are only useful in that specific structure, which is not the case. Those components are readily use by other parts of a cell or by different cells for different purposes, and were repurposed to form the structure we're discussing. This is a common theme in evolution - structures being "repurposed." In a perhaps overly simple example, you might think of how the same set of limb and finger bones can be "repurposed" from a grasping hand into a fin or wing. A better example is how particular jaw bones of early synapsids were repurposed into the tiny bones of the mammalian inner ear.

Anyways, earlier you said "felines evolved to different felines, canines evolved to different canines." That's true. They both also evolved from animals that were neither feline nor canine. Do you accept this, or no? If no, what is the data you're relying on to come to that conclusion?

Doc Holliday said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Is single-cell life irreducibly complex? If not, explain how it came into being. If so, explain how it came into being.

---

Nucleotides bonded together to make the first RNAs and there's no way something wasn't driving that to achieve a goal as opposed to a random process.

---

Perhaps I'm misreading your intent here, but evolution is by no means random. Perhaps that's what you were saying though.

MT_Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Is single-cell life irreducibly complex? If not, explain how it came into being. If so, explain how it came into being.

---

Nucleotides bonded together to make the first RNAs and there's no way something wasn't driving that to achieve a goal as opposed to a random process.

---

Perhaps I'm misreading your intent here, but evolution is by no means random. Perhaps that's what you were saying though.

---

I'm saying abiogenesis (self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, etc.) didn't just randomly happen.

Scientists have no explanation of what caused these processes.

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Is single-cell life irreducibly complex? If not, explain how it came into being. If so, explain how it came into being.

---

Are you asking me, or someone else? If me, no, a cell is not irreducibly complex, nor do I think most hardcore Creationists (who are the only people I know to frequently use that term) would say it is, as it's easily reducible (functional in some way without all of its components).

I think if you want to discuss the evolution of cells, you must start by acknowledging that cells themselves have undergone a tremendous amount of evolution; the common animal cell today is vastly different from the first "cell" on the planet. But the components that make up simple cells are not particularly difficult to come by on a wet, warm-ish planet. For example, one extremely important component of any cell is a partitioning membrane that separates the external environment from the internal environment. Phospholipids readily assemble into such closed membranes because of the difference in the hydrophobic and hydrophilic ends of their molecular structure. That membrane is the beginning of one component of a cell, and one of the most important.

A different, more rigorous argument for "irreducible complexity" has long been single components of many bacterial cells, like mitochondria or flagella. The gist of that argument, greatly simplified for the sake of being succinct, is that the various components are all necessary at the same time to form a functional mitochondrion or flagellum, and without any one, the mitochondrion/ flagellum does not function. The error is to assume that those various components are only useful in that specific structure, which is not the case. Those components are readily use by other parts of a cell or by different cells for different purposes, and were repurposed to form the structure we're discussing. This is a common theme in evolution - structures being "repurposed." In a perhaps overly simple example, you might think of how the same set of limb and finger bones can be "repurposed" from a grasping hand into a fin or wing. A better example is how particular jaw bones of early synapsids were repurposed into the tiny bones of the mammalian inner ear.

Anyways, earlier you said "felines evolved to different felines, canines evolved to different canines." That's true. They both also evolved from animals that were neither feline nor canine. Do you accept this, or no? If no, what is the data you're relying on to come to that conclusion?

---

"canine to canine" is probably to narrow. How about animal life from animal life; Plant life from plant life; but life from non-life???

Doc Holliday said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Is single-cell life irreducibly complex? If not, explain how it came into being. If so, explain how it came into being.

---

Nucleotides bonded together to make the first RNAs and there's no way something wasn't driving that to achieve a goal as opposed to a random process.

---

Perhaps I'm misreading your intent here, but evolution is by no means random. Perhaps that's what you were saying though.

---

I'm saying abiogenesis (self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, etc.) didn't just randomly happen.

Scientists have no explanation of what caused these processes.

---

Depends on what you mean here. No, the interaction of molecules that allowed for self-assembly, self-replication, etc. to arise was not a random process, because chemistry is not random.

Scientists have quite a few hypotheses regarding the beginning of self-replication, self-assembly, etc. So to say they have "no explanation" is dishonest. If by no explanation you mean no widely agreed-upon mechanistic theory, then I completely agree. This is largely because the fossil record simply fails at some point; it gets worse and worse 1) the further back in time you go and 2) the more you're looking for fossils devoid of any mineralized components. Thus the earliest cells will never, ever be found within the fossil record, leading us to use biochemical signatures and laboratory experiments to work out how they arose.

However, the problem is when people indicate that recognizing the difficulty of studying any particular aspect of life history (or cosmology, or whatever) relates in any way to the presence of God. Relying on a god of the gaps to bolster one's faith is a wager doomed to fail over and over and over again as history progresses. I'm not saying that applies to you, by the way; I'm mentioning it only because it does seem to be something that several on the board cling to.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Is single-cell life irreducibly complex? If not, explain how it came into being. If so, explain how it came into being.

---

Are you asking me, or someone else? If me, no, a cell is not irreducibly complex, nor do I think most hardcore Creationists (who are the only people I know to frequently use that term) would say it is, as it's easily reducible (functional in some way without all of its components).

I think if you want to discuss the evolution of cells, you must start by acknowledging that cells themselves have undergone a tremendous amount of evolution; the common animal cell today is vastly different from the first "cell" on the planet. But the components that make up simple cells are not particularly difficult to come by on a wet, warm-ish planet. For example, one extremely important component of any cell is a partitioning membrane that separates the external environment from the internal environment. Phospholipids readily assemble into such closed membranes because of the difference in the hydrophobic and hydrophilic ends of their molecular structure. That membrane is the beginning of one component of a cell, and one of the most important.

A different, more rigorous argument for "irreducible complexity" has long been single components of many bacterial cells, like mitochondria or flagella. The gist of that argument, greatly simplified for the sake of being succinct, is that the various components are all necessary at the same time to form a functional mitochondrion or flagellum, and without any one, the mitochondrion/ flagellum does not function. The error is to assume that those various components are only useful in that specific structure, which is not the case. Those components are readily use by other parts of a cell or by different cells for different purposes, and were repurposed to form the structure we're discussing. This is a common theme in evolution - structures being "repurposed." In a perhaps overly simple example, you might think of how the same set of limb and finger bones can be "repurposed" from a grasping hand into a fin or wing. A better example is how particular jaw bones of early synapsids were repurposed into the tiny bones of the mammalian inner ear.

Anyways, earlier you said "felines evolved to different felines, canines evolved to different canines." That's true. They both also evolved from animals that were neither feline nor canine. Do you accept this, or no? If no, what is the data you're relying on to come to that conclusion?

---

"canine to canine" is probably to narrow. How about animal life from animal life; Plant life from plant life; but life from non-life???

---

To be clear then, are you indicating that you accept all modern animals evolving from one common ancestor and all modern plants likewise evolving from one common ancestor? And then are you saying that the only "jump" that you have trouble with is the progression from chemistry into living cells?

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Is single-cell life irreducibly complex? If not, explain how it came into being. If so, explain how it came into being.

---

Are you asking me, or someone else? If me, no, a cell is not irreducibly complex, nor do I think most hardcore Creationists (who are the only people I know to frequently use that term) would say it is, as it's easily reducible (functional in some way without all of its components).

I think if you want to discuss the evolution of cells, you must start by acknowledging that cells themselves have undergone a tremendous amount of evolution; the common animal cell today is vastly different from the first "cell" on the planet. But the components that make up simple cells are not particularly difficult to come by on a wet, warm-ish planet. For example, one extremely important component of any cell is a partitioning membrane that separates the external environment from the internal environment. Phospholipids readily assemble into such closed membranes because of the difference in the hydrophobic and hydrophilic ends of their molecular structure. That membrane is the beginning of one component of a cell, and one of the most important.

A different, more rigorous argument for "irreducible complexity" has long been single components of many bacterial cells, like mitochondria or flagella. The gist of that argument, greatly simplified for the sake of being succinct, is that the various components are all necessary at the same time to form a functional mitochondrion or flagellum, and without any one, the mitochondrion/ flagellum does not function. The error is to assume that those various components are only useful in that specific structure, which is not the case. Those components are readily use by other parts of a cell or by different cells for different purposes, and were repurposed to form the structure we're discussing. This is a common theme in evolution - structures being "repurposed." In a perhaps overly simple example, you might think of how the same set of limb and finger bones can be "repurposed" from a grasping hand into a fin or wing. A better example is how particular jaw bones of early synapsids were repurposed into the tiny bones of the mammalian inner ear.

Anyways, earlier you said "felines evolved to different felines, canines evolved to different canines." That's true. They both also evolved from animals that were neither feline nor canine. Do you accept this, or no? If no, what is the data you're relying on to come to that conclusion?

---

"canine to canine" is probably to narrow. How about animal life from animal life; Plant life from plant life; but life from non-life???

---

To be clear then, are you indicating that you accept all modern animals evolving from one common ancestor and all modern plants likewise evolving from one common ancestor? And then are you saying that the only "jump" that you have trouble with is the progression from chemistry into living cells?

---

i don't have the education to discuss at a higher level. I am saying I don't see design without a designer. I don't see densely packed, intricate, detailed data (dna), without an intelligent being causing, assembling, and putting into motion those things creating life.

I'm also not saying you are opposing that because I've not seen you say that as other posters have. Maybe I missed it and you have. I don't know.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Is single-cell life irreducibly complex? If not, explain how it came into being. If so, explain how it came into being.

---

Are you asking me, or someone else? If me, no, a cell is not irreducibly complex, nor do I think most hardcore Creationists (who are the only people I know to frequently use that term) would say it is, as it's easily reducible (functional in some way without all of its components).

I think if you want to discuss the evolution of cells, you must start by acknowledging that cells themselves have undergone a tremendous amount of evolution; the common animal cell today is vastly different from the first "cell" on the planet. But the components that make up simple cells are not particularly difficult to come by on a wet, warm-ish planet. For example, one extremely important component of any cell is a partitioning membrane that separates the external environment from the internal environment. Phospholipids readily assemble into such closed membranes because of the difference in the hydrophobic and hydrophilic ends of their molecular structure. That membrane is the beginning of one component of a cell, and one of the most important.

A different, more rigorous argument for "irreducible complexity" has long been single components of many bacterial cells, like mitochondria or flagella. The gist of that argument, greatly simplified for the sake of being succinct, is that the various components are all necessary at the same time to form a functional mitochondrion or flagellum, and without any one, the mitochondrion/ flagellum does not function. The error is to assume that those various components are only useful in that specific structure, which is not the case. Those components are readily use by other parts of a cell or by different cells for different purposes, and were repurposed to form the structure we're discussing. This is a common theme in evolution - structures being "repurposed." In a perhaps overly simple example, you might think of how the same set of limb and finger bones can be "repurposed" from a grasping hand into a fin or wing. A better example is how particular jaw bones of early synapsids were repurposed into the tiny bones of the mammalian inner ear.

Anyways, earlier you said "felines evolved to different felines, canines evolved to different canines." That's true. They both also evolved from animals that were neither feline nor canine. Do you accept this, or no? If no, what is the data you're relying on to come to that conclusion?

---

"canine to canine" is probably to narrow. How about animal life from animal life; Plant life from plant life; but life from non-life???

---

To be clear then, are you indicating that you accept all modern animals evolving from one common ancestor and all modern plants likewise evolving from one common ancestor? And then are you saying that the only "jump" that you have trouble with is the progression from chemistry into living cells?

---

i don't have the education to discuss at a higher level. I am saying I don't see design without a designer. I don't see densely packed, intricate, detailed data (dna), without an intelligent being causing, assembling, and putting into motion those things creating life.

I'm also not saying you are opposing that because I've not seen you say that as other posters have. Maybe I missed it and you have. I don't know.

---

Fair enough. I have two quick thoughts:

1) What someone not well-studied in biology would call "design" may not look so designed once you study it further. As an example, consider dolphin DNA. They carry several hundred non-functional genes encoding structures which enable mammals to smell things in the air, but which are useless for an animal living underwater. The dolphins don't use these genes - the genes are vestigial. Dolphins carry these vestigial genes because they evolved from animals that walked on land and, of course, smelled odorants in the air.

2) Perhaps more importantly for the discussion, I don't think it "matters" in some sense whether you believe life evolved with or without a higher creator. For the record, I have never had the least bit of trouble "reconciling" Biblical truths with scientific truths. I hesitate to use the word reconcile, as it implies some sort of inherent conflict, which I do not see as even existing in the first place. The reason I think the conversation is important is that I personally know people who do see conflict, and they then "choose" a side, and use that choice as a means to blindly ignore not just evolutionary biology, but other scientific truths as well. That, I think, leads to many problems (not to mention much wasted energy).