Notices
Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Is evolution impossible?

  1. #1 Is evolution impossible? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    20
    Since all these things are true, :

    1) All organisms either depend on each other for survival or depend on nature itself.

    2) Every organism has specific nutrients it needs, but not all organisms have the same needs. Every organism must have some biological way of absorbing these nutrients and using them to repair themselves.

    3) Every organism must recycle the chemicals(elements and molecules) that make up its physical structure back into nature for other organisms to use. This occurs either when an organism eliminates toxins and chemicals or when the organism dies.

    4) No cell can live without the presence of nature already existing and no cell can exist without the aid of a parent cell or a peer/fellow cell, except for the first cell that originated(we call that creation of life or abiogenisis). Each cell must have the chemicals it needs, it must break up molecules into elements and transfer them back into nature so other organisms can use it.

    5) In order to MAKE a new cell, you must use a cell form that already exists in nature and you must copy the structure, DNA and the nutrients from that already existing cell and try to form a new cell.

    6) You can't manually MAKE a new cell by scratch. Every organism has its biological ways of reproducing, and a new cell cannot be created without the biological structure of the parent. The only way you can manually make a cell is by first copying the DNA and all the necessary stuff from the parent, which is the same as listed in 5.

    7) Every organism has a parent. Every parent passes its DNA to its offspring while the offspring either feeds off the nutrients of the parent or the chemicals in nature, in order to grow and develop.







    Wouldn't all life forms have to be created at the same time? How could complex life possibly evolutionize from a simple life form if all these things are true?


    Imagine the first living cell on Earth. He needs certain things in order to survive, and without other organisms to recycle things back into nature, how could he possible survive?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    noskillz

    There is a gaping hole in your logic.
    That is : the first 'living' organism was utterly unlike anything today, and living in an environment utterly different to that we have today. For example : there was no oxygen. The early atmosphere would be toxic by today's standards.

    The conditions that apply today for life, are different to the conditions that applied in the earliest moments of the prehistory of life on Earth. Thus, you cannot quote those conditions as needed for first life.

    It was only later, after a billion or more years of evolution that the modern situation came into being.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    noskillz

    There is a gaping hole in your logic.
    That is : the first 'living' organism was utterly unlike anything today, and living in an environment utterly different to that we have today. For example : there was no oxygen. The early atmosphere would be toxic by today's standards.

    The conditions that apply today for life, are different to the conditions that applied in the earliest moments of the prehistory of life on Earth. Thus, you cannot quote those conditions as needed for first life.

    It was only later, after a billion or more years of evolution that the modern situation came into being.
    Regardless of what organisms were around and how they are so different from today's organisms, all the things listed in that list still hold true, do they not? Everything has its specific needs, but not everything has the same needs. Oxygen, unnecessary for some organisms to thrive on was mentioned as an example of yours, but of course, we already knew that, because that's what I inferred to in my list...

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic


    The conditions that apply today for life, are different to the conditions that applied in the earliest moments of the prehistory of life on Earth. Thus, you cannot quote those conditions as needed for first life.
    Are you trying to say that physics back then was different from the physics we have today?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: Is evolution impossible? 
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by noSkillz
    Sorry to post this same question in multiple forums, but the other post was in the wrong forum.


    Since all these things are true, :

    1) All organisms depend on each other for survival


    This isn't true, many chemoautotrophs and phototrophs could live quite fine without other organisms.

    Quote Originally Posted by noSkillz
    2) Every organism has specific nutrients it needs, but not all organisms have the same needs. Every organism must have some biological way of absorbing these nutrients and using them to repair themselves.
    So? The first cell wouldn't, however evolution doesn't even address the first cell, evolution is the theory of how living things change over time, not how living things first came into being.

    Quote Originally Posted by noSkillz
    3) Every organism must recycle the chemicals(elements) that make up its physical structure back into nature for other organisms to use
    They must do nothing of the kind. Besides where else are the elements going to go after making up an organism? Outerspace?

    Quote Originally Posted by noSkillz
    4) No organism can live just by itself(supposedly)
    Same as 1...

    Quote Originally Posted by noSkillz
    5) In order to MAKE a new cell, you must use a cell form that already exists in nature and you must copy the structure, DNA and the nutrients from that already existing cell and try to form a new cell.
    The conditions when the first organism evolved are not the same as today. Today because life already exists, any complex organics are consumed and there is no longer a reducing atmosphere that is conductive to the collection of organic molecules either. Once again though, this has nothing to do with evolution.

    Quote Originally Posted by noSkillz
    6) You can't manually MAKE a new cell. Every organism has its biological ways of reproducing, and a new cell cannot be created without the biological structure of the parent.
    We'll be able to make a new cell from scratch eventually, we can already make proto-cells and DNA synthetically. Otherwise, see answer to 5.

    Quote Originally Posted by noSkillz
    7) Every organism has a parent. Every parent passes its DNA to its offspring while the offspring feeds off the nutrients of the parent, in order to grow and develop.
    Well half of this is just outright false, bacteria hardly feed their daughter cells, partly because they cease to exist once they divide. As to the DNA thing this is just how life as we know it has evolved. Once again this has nothing to do with evolution, you're talking about abiogenesis.





    Quote Originally Posted by noSkillz
    Wouldn't all life forms have to be created at the same time? How could complex life possibly evolutionize from a simple life form if all these things are true?
    No, I don't know how you get to this conclusion. Mostly, because most of those things aren't true, and when they are partially true aren't even barriers to evolution.

    Quote Originally Posted by noSkillz
    Imagine the first living cell on Earth. He needs certain things in order to survive, and without other organisms to recycle things back into nature, how could he possible survive?
    Living things don't need other organisms to recycle stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Things were seriously different. Let me talk of the first self replicating structures as pre-life, since they were too simple to be called living, yet evolved into complex life.

    For example, the earliest pre-life would have used non living materials as resources, instead of other living things. The world would have had large amounts of carbon based chemicals, made from non living chemical processes. This has already been well demonstrated in the laboratory, and such compounds have been found in extra-terrestrial locations, such as nebulae.

    Recycling resources would not have been needed early in the history of pre-life, since non renewable resources would have been abundant enough to support simple life for rather a long time.

    Pre-life structures could have lived by themselves, since they were using resources from non living sources.

    The earliest pre-life and its exact structure is currently unknown, but probably came from simple RNA strands, which formed from relatively simple chemistry. An RNA strand can replicate itself in a purely chemical environment if the requisite carbon compounds are present. Of course, once self replicating RNA is active, natural selection can begin, and the first RNA based pre-life would change to form more effective replicators. Thus the long progression towards complex life begins.

    You said every organism had a parent. Clearly the first self replicating RNA strand, formed from non biological chemistry, did not. You can argue that such a chemical entity was not living, and a very strong argument can be made to that effect. Hence my term 'pre-life'. But that was the origin of what would evolve into life.

    I could go on. The simple reality is that the laws governing modern life did not govern the first structures that later evolved into complex life. The principles you outlined in your first post do not apply to the first pre-life chemistry.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: Is evolution impossible? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    20
    [quote="i_feel_tiredsleepy"][quote="noSkillz"]Sorry to post this same question in multiple forums, but the other post was in the wrong forum.


    1) All organisms depend on each other for survival

    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    This isn't true, many chemoautotrophs and phototrophs could live quite fine without other organisms.

    I couldn't disagree with you more on this one. After all, take away all the plants and animals and bugs that humans need, and what do you get? Humans would die without their needs!!! Therefore, we depend on other species for our survival.


    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    Quote Originally Posted by noSkillz
    3) Every organism must recycle the chemicals(elements) that make up its physical structure back into nature for other organisms to use
    They must do nothing of the kind. Besides where else are the elements going to go after making up an organism? Outerspace?
    Again I couldn't disagree with you more! What if we didn't have plants? They wouldn't give us the oxygen we need to breath! Thus we would die without the recycling of elements in nature.



    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    Quote Originally Posted by noSkillz
    6) You can't manually MAKE a new cell. Every organism has its biological ways of reproducing, and a new cell cannot be created without the biological structure of the parent.
    We'll be able to make a new cell from scratch eventually, we can already make proto-cells and DNA synthetically. Otherwise, see answer to 5.
    Uhhhhh... no

    Did you know that scientists have tried many times to make a new cell from scratch and do you know what? They failed everytime!!!! The only way they could make a new cell was to copy the DNA and all the required stuff from parent cell, and use the parent cell to make a copy for the new one.

    I'm sorry, but just taking chemicals manually and just putting them together doesn't make life. It takes something special, like a special kind of force to DO THAT! Again, scientists have, for many times, tried to get all the chemicals a cell needs and try to rearrange them in order to make a cell, but have failed everytime and the results were, that no life had formed.



    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    Quote Originally Posted by noSkillz
    Imagine the first living cell on Earth. He needs certain things in order to survive, and without other organisms to recycle things back into nature, how could he possible survive?
    Living things don't need other organisms to recycle stuff.
    Again I have already addressed this issue above.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Progress is being made towards artificial life. Craig Venter's team has already made an artificial chromosome.

    http://gizmodo.com/307958/craig-vent...s-been-created

    It is only a matter of time before an organism of similar complexity to a bacterium is made.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: Is evolution impossible? 
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by noSkillz
    Uhhhhh... no

    Did you know that scientists have tried many times to make a new cell from scratch and do you know what? They failed everytime!!!! The only way they could make a new cell was to copy the DNA and all the required stuff from parent cell, and use the parent cell to make a copy for the new one.
    First, as has already been shared, you are now referring to abiogenesis, not evolution.

    Second, you are quite mistaken with your assertion. Here's one from just a year ago. There are countless more I could offer you if you somehow manage to dismiss this one: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0309104434.htm
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Re: Is evolution impossible? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by noSkillz
    Uhhhhh... no

    Did you know that scientists have tried many times to make a new cell from scratch and do you know what? They failed everytime!!!! The only way they could make a new cell was to copy the DNA and all the required stuff from parent cell, and use the parent cell to make a copy for the new one.
    First, as has already been shared, you are now referring to abiogenesis, not evolution.

    Second, you are quite mistaken with your assertion. Here's one from just a year ago. There are countless more I could offer you if you somehow manage to dismiss this one: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0309104434.htm

    I was trying to make a point with the list that given all the rules of nature, you would conclude that for life, it was difficult or at least impossible for things to evolutionize, unless you had a theory or some sort of a picture to help you see how things worked together when the first life forms had popped up.


    And actually, making a single ribosome is NOT LIFE! They gotta make the whole cell. They are not even close to making a whole cell. I doubt that they will be able to make a new cell.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Progress is being made towards artificial life. Craig Venter's team has already made an artificial chromosome.

    http://gizmodo.com/307958/craig-vent...s-been-created

    It is only a matter of time before an organism of similar complexity to a bacterium is made.

    Yeah, but do you know where all that DNA came from? It came from another bacterium!

    "The original bacterium had a fifth of its DNA removed and was able to live successfully with the synthetic chromosome in place."



    Sure and of course you can make a cell from another organism, which is what I was referring to in the list. But try collecting all the elements in nature necessary for life in order to make life and try to piece them together into DNA, proteins, fats, carbs, water and piecing them into a cell. You will fail to make life!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11 Re: Is evolution impossible? 
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by noSkillz

    I couldn't disagree with you more on this one. After all, take away all the plants and animals and bugs that humans need, and what do you get? Humans would die without their needs!!! Therefore, we depend on other species for our survival.


    Again I couldn't disagree with you more! What if we didn't have plants? They wouldn't give us the oxygen we need to breath! Thus we would die without the recycling of elements in nature.
    Well it doesn't matter if you disagree with me. Your assertion is false. Chemoautotrophic extremophiles around hydrothermal vents get all their nutrients from inorganic sources. No need for other organisms. Moreover, photosynthetic cyanobacteria can get all their nutrients from inorganic sources. Heterotrophs, like humans, have evolved to exploit these organisms, we would die without them because we have evolved in a world where they existed and we took advantage of them. Your knowledge of biology and ecology is clearly lacking.


    Quote Originally Posted by noSkillz
    Uhhhhh... no

    Did you know that scientists have tried many times to make a new cell from scratch and do you know what? They failed everytime!!!! The only way they could make a new cell was to copy the DNA and all the required stuff from parent cell, and use the parent cell to make a copy for the new one.

    I'm sorry, but just taking chemicals manually and just putting them together doesn't make life. It takes something special, like a special kind of force to DO THAT! Again, scientists have, for many times, tried to get all the chemicals a cell needs and try to rearrange them in order to make a cell, but have failed everytime and the results were, that no life had formed.
    Note that I said eventually, and then note that once again this all has nothing at all to do with evolution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12 Re: Is evolution impossible? 
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by noSkillz
    I was trying to make a point with the list that given all the rules of nature, you would conclude that for life, it was difficult or at least impossible for things to evolutionize
    As has been shown, your "rules of life" are not rules at all. Also, the word you are looking for, friend, is "evolve," not "evolutionize." Take care.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Noskillz said :

    "Yeah, but do you know where all that DNA came from? It came from another bacterium!

    "The original bacterium had a fifth of its DNA removed and was able to live successfully with the synthetic chromosome in place.""

    In fact, the DNA was synthetic. The researchers removed one fifth of the DNA and replaced it with an artificial chromosome, which worked extremely well.

    There is now a well established technique for making sysnthetic DNA, in which the nucleotides are added one at a time, making it possible to arrange exactly the sequence code planned. Of course, making the first molecule is slow and tedious, but after one molecule is made, making copies is easy and quick.

    Venters team were successful, and are continuing to work. They now have in mind making a bacterium synthetically that is capable of manufacturing hydrogen gas, to use as fuel.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14 Re: Is evolution impossible? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    Well it doesn't matter if you disagree with me. Your assertion is false. Chemoautotrophic extremophiles around hydrothermal vents get all their nutrients from inorganic sources. No need for other organisms. Moreover, photosynthetic cyanobacteria can get all their nutrients from inorganic sources. Heterotrophs, like humans, have evolved to exploit these organisms, we would die without them because we have evolved in a world where they existed and we took advantage of them. Your knowledge of biology and ecology is clearly lacking.

    I have recently updated my question at the top, the rules have changed, its just that they were not specific enough in the first place.


    You are right that bacteria and certain organisms do get things from inorganic sources, and things such as sunlight. But, we call that nature, and as I have just recently updated my question, it is listed that "All organisms either depend on each other or depend on nature itself". It turns out that I just wasn't specific enough. But regardless of whether organisms make their own food or not, the bottom line is: "Organisms depend on everything else". That's what was meant to be said in the first place.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    20
    Here is the new question with added information:


    Since all these things are true, :

    1) All organisms either depend on each other for survival or depend on nature itself.

    2) Every organism has specific nutrients it needs, but not all organisms have the same needs. Every organism must have some biological way of absorbing these nutrients and using them to repair themselves.

    3) Every organism must recycle the chemicals(elements and molecules) that make up its physical structure back into nature for other organisms to use. This occurs either when an organism eliminates toxins and chemicals or when the organism dies.

    4) No cell can live without the presence of nature already existing and no cell can exist without the aid of a parent cell or a peer/fellow cell, except for the first cell that originated(we call that creation of life or abiogenisis). Each cell must have the chemicals it needs, it must break up molecules into elements and transfer them back into nature so other organisms can use it.

    5) In order to MAKE a new cell, you must use a cell form that already exists in nature and you must copy the structure, DNA and the nutrients from that already existing cell and try to form a new cell.

    6) You can't manually MAKE a new cell by scratch. Every organism has its biological ways of reproducing, and a new cell cannot be created without the biological structure of the parent. The only way you can manually make a cell is by first copying the DNA and all the necessary stuff from the parent, which is the same as listed in 5.

    7) Every organism has a parent. Every parent passes its DNA to its offspring while the offspring either feeds off the nutrients of the parent or the chemicals in nature, in order to grow and develop.







    Wouldn't all life forms have to be created at the same time? How could complex life possibly evolve from a simple life form if all these things are true? It would make more sense that things must have sprung to life all at the same time in order to survive.


    Imagine the first living cell on Earth. He needs certain things in order to survive, and without other organisms to recycle things back into nature, how could he possible survive? How could it be possible for him to evolve?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16 Re: Is evolution impossible? 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by noSkillz
    1) All organisms either depend on each other for survival or depend on nature itself.
    This is a trivial statement. However, in relation to evolution, if it has any relevance it supports the concept of evolution. Evolution is about fitness within a particular environment which influences the organism. This statement confirms that organisms exist within a particular environment that influences them.

    Conclusion 1: Your first point is wholly consistent with evolution.

    Quote Originally Posted by noSkillz
    2) Every organism has specific nutrients it needs, but not all organisms have the same needs. Every organism must have some biological way of absorbing these nutrients and using them to repair themselves.
    The difference in needs contributes to the existence of biodiversity. The availability of these needs varies from environment to environment and from time to time. These variations are part of the pressures on organisms to evolve.

    Conclusion 2: Your second point is wholly consistent with evolution and pinpoints one of the driving forces behind evolution.

    Quote Originally Posted by noSkillz
    3) Every organism must recycle the chemicals(elements and molecules) that make up its physical structure back into nature for other organisms to use. This occurs either when an organism eliminates toxins and chemicals or when the organism dies.
    This is badly phrased. Every organism does recycle its components back into the system, it is not a case that it must recycle its components.
    However, overall this is another trivial statement. Some organisms and certainly the first organisms, do not and did not require material that had been 'processed' by previous organisms.

    Conclusion 3: Your third point is wholly consistent with evolution, largely because it is practically unrelated to evolution.

    Quote Originally Posted by noSkillz
    4) No cell can live without the presence of nature already existing and no cell can exist without the aid of a parent cell or a peer/fellow cell, except for the first cell that originated(we call that creation of life or abiogenisis). Each cell must have the chemicals it needs, it must break up molecules into elements and transfer them back into nature so other organisms can use it.
    Again you have this alleged imperative that a cell must do such and such. No. Because organisms do this kind of thing other organisms have taken advantage of it. Organisms have evolved to take advantage of it. There were corpses before there were microorganisms that fed on the corpses. The process you are describing is a partial description of the varied environments, influenced by other organisms, within which evolution has taken place.

    Conclusion 4: Your fourth point is wholly consistent with evolution.

    Quote Originally Posted by noSkillz
    5) In order to MAKE a new cell, you must use a cell form that already exists in nature and you must copy the structure, DNA and the nutrients from that already existing cell and try to form a new cell.?
    This is superficially true, but contains a glaring omission. True, the cell 'form' must be similar to the pre-existing, but it is through the medium of mutations and copying errors that new forms are generated.

    Conclusion 5: Your fifth point is wholly consistent with evolution, once it is corrected for its substantial error.

    Quote Originally Posted by noSkillz
    6) You can't manually MAKE a new cell by scratch. Every organism has its biological ways of reproducing, and a new cell cannot be created without the biological structure of the parent. The only way you can manually make a cell is by first copying the DNA and all the necessary stuff from the parent, which is the same as listed in 5.
    This is incorrect, as has been pointed out to you before.

    Conclusion 6: Your sixth point is irrelevant since it is mistaken.

    Quote Originally Posted by noSkillz
    7) Every organism has a parent. Every parent passes its DNA to its offspring while the offspring either feeds off the nutrients of the parent or the chemicals in nature, in order to grow and develop.
    [/b]Again there is a glaring omission: the statement is true for all organisms after the first entity we choose to call an organism, but you have omitted to mention that it is not true for it. You are conflating abiogenesis with evolution. You have implicitly raised a point that has nothing relevant to say about evolution.

    Conclusion 7: Your seventh point is wholly consistent with evolution since it has no bearing on evolution.

    Wouldn't all life forms have to be created at the same time?
    No. Nothing in your seven points suggests this would be the case and several of your points actually suggest the opposite is required.

    How could complex life possibly evolutionize from a simple life form if all these things are true?
    There would be no problem. The points you raised either support evolution or have nothing to say about it or have been seriously misunderstood by you.

    Imagine the first living cell on Earth. He needs certain things in order to survive, and without other organisms to recycle things back into nature, how could he possible survive?
    Are you even bothering to read any of the replies? There are organisms which exist purely on chemical energy and have no dependence whatsoever on other organisms. You seem unable to imagine such organisms, but nature has had no problem in generating them.

    Overall Conclusion:
    You don't understand evolution. You don't undetsand biology. You don't understand the points you think you are making.

    Final Conclusion

    You have an exciting time ahead of you learning the truth about these matters.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    NoSkillz, much of what you have raised is based either on misunderstanding or outright deception- not that I accuse you of deception but rather of being knowingly mislead by people who have a vested interest in sewing doubts regarding evolution and abiogenesis. All of this has been addressed in the past by biologists and is quite common knowledge at this point. Since many of the assertions made here are pseudoscientific or misrepresentative of the position of modern biologists, I am moving this thread to the pseudoscience forum. This decision is of course open to appeal via the Site Feedback forum or via PM to me or the Admins.

    I sincerely hope that you and the other participants will continue this discussion. For my part I will keep this thread open so long as the discussion remains civilised.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    20
    It seems to me that all of you people have the same critisisms towards this issue. Let me explain in more detail why things should work a certain way.


    1) "All organisms either depend on each other for survival or depend on nature itself."

    It seems that some of you might misunderstand on what I mean by "nature".
    Nature is the universe, and everything in the universe. Therefore, by saying that organisms depend on each other for survival or by nature itself, I am saying "that everything depends on everything, and that nothing can live without the universe itself"


    2) "Every organism has specific nutrients it needs, but not all organisms have the same needs."

    Ok, this might not be totally true. It is true that plants and animals are confined to specific needs, but not in the case of microorganisms. But, I have recently read up on that certain bacteria can live on pretty much anything, such as metal and chemicals. I didn't know that bacteria could live on pretty much anything, so "not everything has to have a specific need, but it is true that everything in the universe has to have at least some kind of "need", whether it comes directly from the chemicals in nature(universe), or it comes from plants and animals.

    3)"Every organism must recycle the chemicals(elements and molecules) that make up its physical structure back into nature for other organisms to use. This occurs either when an organism eliminates toxins and chemicals or when the organism dies."

    Ok. If this is not true, then when an organism dies, where doe the chemicals go? They just doesn't dissapear! It has to go somewhere doesn't it? Therefore, by common sense, everything must return back to nature. Otherwise, all the physics in the past are not true.

    4) "No cell can live without the presence of nature already existing"

    I have already adressed this issue, everything in the universe depends on everything else in the universe.

    6) "You can't manually MAKE a new cell by scratch."

    Well maybe this is not totally true. But as far as evidence goes, there has been very little proof for this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by noSkillz
    I am saying "that everything depends on everything, and that nothing can live without the universe itself"
    I expect everyone would agree with this statement completely. That is why I described it as trivial. If you prefer I shall call it obvious, or describe it as a given, or say that it is axiomatic.
    However, there is absolutley nothing about that statement that suggests evolution is not possible. What makes you think that there is?

    Quote Originally Posted by noSkillz
    2) "Every organism has specific nutrients it needs, but not all organisms have the same needs."
    Ok, this might not be totally true. It is true that plants and animals are confined to specific needs, but not in the case of microorganisms. But, I have recently read up on that certain bacteria can live on pretty much anything, such as metal and chemicals. I didn't know that bacteria could live on pretty much anything, so "not everything has to have a specific need, but it is true that everything in the universe has to have at least some kind of "need", whether it comes directly from the chemicals in nature(universe), or it comes from plants and animals.
    Well you seem to be continuing your misundestanding. The bacteria that live on raw materials rather than upon other organisms or upon raw materials + sunlight cannot 'live on pretty much anything', but are adapted and evloved to live on some very specific things.

    However, once again, this fact supports evolution. It does not make it unlikely or impossible. What is it that makes you think it does?

    Quote Originally Posted by noSkillz
    3)"Every organism must recycle the chemicals(elements and molecules) that make up its physical structure back into nature for other organisms to use. This occurs either when an organism eliminates toxins and chemicals or when the organism dies."
    .
    You have made this statement:
    Every organism must recycle its chemicals back into nature for other organisms to use.

    This is what is wrong. This statement implies the recycling is designed for the benefit of other organisms. It isn't.
    Moreover, even if it were true, how would that be an argument against evolution?

    I have already adressed this issue, everything in the universe depends on everything else in the universe.
    And we are all agreeing with that. We are asking you how that in any way contradicts evolution. You have not addressed that very simple point.


    6) "You can't manually MAKE a new cell by scratch."

    Well maybe this is not totally true. But as far as evidence goes, there has been very little proof for this.
    And frankly it doesn't bloody matter. Whether you can or cannot has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. Tell me how it does and I shall explain to you how you are mistaken.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •