- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Bodhitharta's Law explained to an Atheist
Atheist- It's astonishing how ignorant people like you have the nerve to make videos like this.
You don't distinguish abiogenesis from evolution, make false claims about requirements for the first self-replicating molecules and don't seem to understand differences between first simple lifeforms and complex life that exist today.
And yet you act so pompous and self-righteous..Bodhitharta- You forgot to mention, that I am right! Prove any of my claims are false or simply point me to any living organism species that comes about without replication/reproduction
Atheist-Living organisms have to reproduce or replicate of course. I was referring to metabolism and getting rid of the waste.Bodhitharta-You should probably reread what you thought was proof. You just admitted that Living organisms have to reproduce or replicate therefore you realize that reproduction or replication could not have occured in living organisms throgh evolution as that trait has to be present before evolution can occur, right?
Atheist-Reproduction is of course prerequisite for evolution. That is not a problem for theory of evolution, because it doesn't deal with beginning of life. You are confusing evolution with abiogenesis again.Bodhitharta-No confusion at all, If evolution is the prerequisite for evolution then the necessary traits for reproduction didn't evolve, therefore, life must have started with those traits but if that's true all species have that in common. The ability to reproduce, manage waste and metabolize. For these things to occure their must be a genetic model in the DNA and DNA is a specific code corresponding to a particular species. This makes it clear that living organisms were engineered to function this way. Diversity of adaptations do not leave their genetic boundary without becoming sterile in the process. God Created each according to its own kind. Believe it or not!
I really need you to understand that I am in no way talking about abiogenesis I am talking about biogenesis life from life whether we talk about asexual reproduction or sexual reproduction the same issue remains.
If life evolved to reproduce it would have had to evolve an entire life management system within a single lifetime and with sexual reproduction you would have to have at least two living organisms that had synchronistic random mutations which as we know nature doesn't support SRM's but if they did they would have had to occur within a single span of 1 lifetime and that would mean all the complexities of genetilia and hormonal balances occuring in 1 single lifetime to have at least 1 viable offspring which would also require genetic compatibility which is probably the easiest part since it would be a single species.
So even saying:
“given an original set of living cells/organisms/whatever over time small changes result in different organisms”
This is a huge assumption right off the back.
And while if we accept such an assumption we run smack dead into evolving outside of a ring of species which causes sterility. So in any enviromental adaptation limits are set wherein the reproductive capacity disallows viability.
Quote Bodhitharta- You forgot to mention, that I am right! Prove any of my claims are false or simply point me to any living organism species that comes about without replication/reproduction
Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.Quote Bodhitharta-No confusion at all, If evolution is the prerequisite for evolution
Huh?Quote If life evolved to reproduce it would have had to evolve an entire life management system within a single lifetime
I don’t know of a single model of abiogenesis that requires that. It is a idiot creationist strawman.Quote given an original set of living cells/organisms/whatever over time small changes result in different organisms
This is a huge assumption right off the back.Name one serious scientist who claims that as a description of abiogenesis.
Atheist: Bodhitharta what drugs have you been taking?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ April 21 2009,15:12) Quote Bodhitharta- You forgot to mention, that I am right! Prove any of my claims are false or simply point me to any living organism species that comes about without replication/reproduction
Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.Quote Bodhitharta-No confusion at all, If evolution is the prerequisite for evolution
Huh?Quote If life evolved to reproduce it would have had to evolve an entire life management system within a single lifetime
I don’t know of a single model of abiogenesis that requires that. It is a idiot creationist strawman.Quote given an original set of living cells/organisms/whatever over time small changes result in different organisms
This is a huge assumption right off the back.Name one serious scientist who claims that as a description of abiogenesis.
Atheist: Bodhitharta what drugs have you been taking?
Stuart
Stu,Bodhitharta very clearly said:
Quote I really need you to understand that I am in no way talking about abiogenesis I am talking about biogenesis life from life whether we talk about asexual reproduction or sexual reproduction the same issue remains. Go back and re-read his (or her) post. I think that he (or she) is making a more credible point than you are recognizing. Ignore his (or her) suppositions about God, and consider the scientific question that he (or she) is asking. If I were to re-word it, I might ask it this way:
How does the first living organism “evolve” the ability to reproduce? Evolution requires reproduction, but the first living organism did not come about through reproduction. The first living organism would have to come about through some form of synthesis. So how does reproduction evolve in such an organism?
I am not well read on the subject, so I don't know if scientists have already tried to tackle this issue. But, it seems like an intriguing question nonetheless, and it warrants a little more of a response than your usual dismissive tone.
WhatIsTrue
Quote Go back and re-read his (or her) post. I think that he (or she) is making a more credible point than you are recognizing. Ignore his (or her) suppositions about God, and consider the scientific question that he (or she) is asking. If I were to re-word it, I might ask it this way:
How does the first living organism “evolve” the ability to reproduce? Evolution requires reproduction, but the first living organism did not come about through reproduction. The first living organism would have to come about through some form of synthesis. So how does reproduction evolve in such an organism?
I think you are being very kind to Bodhitharta. The premise of the thread is fatuous nonsense. At least when I quote scripture I make some attempt to understand it. Bodhitharta has no interest in an actual answer, as it evidenced by the title of the thread and the nonsense that follows it.Quote I am not well read on the subject, so I don't know if scientists have already tried to tackle this issue. But, it seems like an intriguing question nonetheless, and it warrants a little more of a response than your usual dismissive tone.
I don’t like your tone, actually. Are you rudely asking for free science tuition?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ April 21 2009,20:12) Quote Bodhitharta- You forgot to mention, that I am right! Prove any of my claims are false or simply point me to any living organism species that comes about without replication/reproduction
Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.Quote Bodhitharta-No confusion at all, If evolution is the prerequisite for evolution
Huh?Quote If life evolved to reproduce it would have had to evolve an entire life management system within a single lifetime
I don’t know of a single model of abiogenesis that requires that. It is a idiot creationist strawman.Quote given an original set of living cells/organisms/whatever over time small changes result in different organisms
This is a huge assumption right off the back.Name one serious scientist who claims that as a description of abiogenesis.
Atheist: Bodhitharta what drugs have you been taking?
Stuart
Stu,You must understand three things
1. There is no evolution without reproduction
2. There is no evolution without Metabolism
3. There is no evolution without waste managementNow, once you understand that you will then have to consider in sexual reproduction you would have had to have 2 source organisms that had the three functions above to reproduce sexually and both would have had to have viable DNA but the funny thing is all this would have had to happen in a single life span of both organisms during a time when they were even capable of reproduction i.e. Synchronized random mutations which of course in nature SRM's do not exist.
If you go with asexual then you run into a viability problem as well as diversity limitations causing a lineage death.
Please do think hard, but I assure you that what I am saying is correct.
Also note: I wouldn't care if evolution was valid or not as it would not alter my belief in God one bit, I am just stating the obvious when looking from a non-invested scientific view, in other words I have nothing to lose by sharing honest data and I also have nothing to gain, so I have no reason to deceive.
Quote (Stu @ April 22 2009,08:51) WhatIsTrue Quote Go back and re-read his (or her) post. I think that he (or she) is making a more credible point than you are recognizing. Ignore his (or her) suppositions about God, and consider the scientific question that he (or she) is asking. If I were to re-word it, I might ask it this way:
How does the first living organism “evolve” the ability to reproduce? Evolution requires reproduction, but the first living organism did not come about through reproduction. The first living organism would have to come about through some form of synthesis. So how does reproduction evolve in such an organism?
I think you are being very kind to Bodhitharta. The premise of the thread is fatuous nonsense. At least when I quote scripture I make some attempt to understand it. Bodhitharta has no interest in an actual answer, as it evidenced by the title of the thread and the nonsense that follows it.Quote I am not well read on the subject, so I don't know if scientists have already tried to tackle this issue. But, it seems like an intriguing question nonetheless, and it warrants a little more of a response than your usual dismissive tone.
I don’t like your tone, actually. Are you rudely asking for free science tuition?Stuart
Stu,Be honest, what do you really know about Evolution or the neccessary physiology needed for it to occur? What do you know about boundary species and what effect it would have on a single specie population?
You don't understand that Commonality of DNA is further evidence against evolution than for it. Even sheep and goats are very similar and totally different and having different number of chromosomes so can you deperate the sheep from the goats and understand anything from it?
Here is your free science tuition.
Quote (Stu @ April 22 2009,03:51) WhatIsTrue Quote Go back and re-read his (or her) post. I think that he (or she) is making a more credible point than you are recognizing. Ignore his (or her) suppositions about God, and consider the scientific question that he (or she) is asking. If I were to re-word it, I might ask it this way:
How does the first living organism “evolve” the ability to reproduce? Evolution requires reproduction, but the first living organism did not come about through reproduction. The first living organism would have to come about through some form of synthesis. So how does reproduction evolve in such an organism?
I think you are being very kind to Bodhitharta. The premise of the thread is fatuous nonsense. At least when I quote scripture I make some attempt to understand it. Bodhitharta has no interest in an actual answer, as it evidenced by the title of the thread and the nonsense that follows it.Quote I am not well read on the subject, so I don't know if scientists have already tried to tackle this issue. But, it seems like an intriguing question nonetheless, and it warrants a little more of a response than your usual dismissive tone.
I don’t like your tone, actually. Are you rudely asking for free science tuition?Stuart
I am prepared to do my own studying Stu. Just point me to a good source that addresses this specific question, and I will gladly check it out for myself.
Just saying, “This is stupid!”, doesn't make it so. Reference and/or logical refutation please!
Quote (Stu @ April 22 2009,08:51) I don’t like your tone, actually. Are you rudely asking for free science tuition?
Hi Stu,
Actually I don't think WIT was being rude, he was just asking you to enter into the debate rather than cast aspersions in your usual manner. It's a debate forum, it's what we [should] do here.bodhitharta
Quote You must understand three things
1. There is no evolution without reproduction
2. There is no evolution without Metabolism
3. There is no evolution without waste management
I disagree. Only no.1 is essential. Viruses evolve at high speed, yet do not perform no.2 or no.3.Quote Now, once you understand that you will then have to consider in sexual reproduction you would have had to have 2 source organisms that had the three functions above to reproduce sexually and both would have had to have viable DNA but the funny thing is all this would have had to happen in a single life span of both organisms during a time when they were even capable of reproduction i.e. Synchronized random mutations which of course in nature SRM's do not exist.
No, you just invented them as a strawman of biology. Although there is such a thing as convergent evolution, where the same way of doing a job is achieved from different evolutionary pathways.Quote If you go with asexual then you run into a viability problem as well as diversity limitations causing a lineage death.
Please do think hard, but I assure you that what I am saying is correct.
Oh please. The percentage of species on the planet that reproduce sexually is well in the minority. It was probably 3 billion years after the first living cells arose that sexual reproduction first appeared.Quote Also note: I wouldn't care if evolution was valid or not as it would not alter my belief in God one bit,
What has that got to do with it? Why spoil a perfectly dull expression of biological ignorance by use of the ‘g’ word? Of course it is pretty clear that you are regurgitating, without understanding, soundbites from creationist websites.Quote I am just stating the obvious when looking from a non-invested scientific view, in other words I have nothing to lose by sharing honest data and I also have nothing to gain, so I have no reason to deceive.
OK. How about you read the Wikipedia pages on evolution, sexual reproduction and genetics then get back to us.Quote Be honest, what do you really know about Evolution or the neccessary physiology needed for it to occur?
A great deal more than you by the look of it. And I last formally studied biology when I was 15 years old. That is when I learned about viruses. Did you pay attention at school?Quote What do you know about boundary species and what effect it would have on a single specie population?
What is your definition of boundary species? It can be what a botanist calls the hedges at the edges of a garden.Quote You don't understand that Commonality of DNA is further evidence against evolution than for it. Even sheep and goats are very similar and totally different and having different number of chromosomes so can you deperate the sheep from the goats and understand anything from it?
Is that statement supposed to have a point behind it? I can’t fathom one. Our closest cousins the other great apes; chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans, gorillas and gibbons all have 48 chromosomes. Humans have 46. Do you know why that is?Quote Here is your free science tuition.
Just as well, I certainly wouldn’t be paying you!Stuart
Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 22 2009,10:32) Quote (Stu @ April 22 2009,08:51) I don’t like your tone, actually. Are you rudely asking for free science tuition?
Hi Stu,
Actually I don't think WIT was being rude, he was just asking you to enter into the debate rather than cast aspersions in your usual manner. It's a debate forum, it's what we [should] do here.
Translation of his last paragraph:“Please tell us what we could find out for ourselves with a little reading, instead of being such a #####.”
Does that clarify the issue for you?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ April 22 2009,16:49) Our closest cousins the other great apes; chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans, gorillas and gibbons all have 48 chromosomes. Humans have 46.
I must amend that statement concerning gibbons. Gibbons have undergone a series of very significant chromosomal rearrangements that make their chromosome evolution unique amongst hominidae. There are four distinct groups of gibbons containing a total of 12 species. The chromosome number in those species ranges from 38 to 52.That greater divergence is consistent with the fact that gibbons and humans shared a common ancestor 18 million years ago and the common ancestors with the other great apes are much more recent. Gibbons have had longer to evolve. By contrast there is only one species of gorilla, one of orangutan and one each of bonobos and chimpanzees, which could be also though of as two species of chimpanzee. The allopatric separation of bonobos from common chimpanzees by the formation of the Congo River is an interesting example.
Stuart
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ April 22 2009,02:11) How does the first living organism “evolve” the ability to reproduce? Evolution requires reproduction, but the first living organism did not come about through reproduction. The first living organism would have to come about through some form of synthesis. So how does reproduction evolve in such an organism?
Stu,
This is a good question, and warrants a response I think. I'm curious to know how you might answer it.Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 22 2009,20:26) Quote (WhatIsTrue @ April 22 2009,02:11) How does the first living organism “evolve” the ability to reproduce? Evolution requires reproduction, but the first living organism did not come about through reproduction. The first living organism would have to come about through some form of synthesis. So how does reproduction evolve in such an organism?
Stu,
This is a good question, and warrants a response I think. I'm curious to know how you might answer it.
It is an idiotic question. Firstly there is no scientific theory of abiogenesis, only speculation, although some of it is pretty good speculation. Secondly evolution happens when individuals suffer genetic mutations which, if not deleterious, are passed on to other members of the population thereby increasing the variation in that population. With changes in the environment over time, some genetic traits will make their owners more successful at survival and reproduction. In this way the whole population undergoes a shift genetically. With enough shifting eventually you can arbitrarily call the population a new species.So how does a question that asks about the first reproducing cell relate to the process of a whole population of them changing genetically?
Stuart
So did we begin with our tails after ridicule inter breeding between brothers sisters and cousins, at adolescence…. or latter in an attempt to turn up with the chosen blood line messiah…gosh the men must have struggled with their God not letting them take a foriegn woman,
surly that's enough to evolve a despair and desire to have what your not permitted to have.Quote (Stu @ April 23 2009,11:31) Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 22 2009,20:26) Quote (WhatIsTrue @ April 22 2009,02:11) How does the first living organism “evolve” the ability to reproduce? Evolution requires reproduction, but the first living organism did not come about through reproduction. The first living organism would have to come about through some form of synthesis. So how does reproduction evolve in such an organism?
Stu,
This is a good question, and warrants a response I think. I'm curious to know how you might answer it.
It is an idiotic question. Firstly there is no scientific theory of abiogenesis, only speculation, although some of it is pretty good speculation. Secondly evolution happens when individuals suffer genetic mutations which, if not deleterious, are passed on to other members of the population thereby increasing the variation in that population. With changes in the environment over time, some genetic traits will make their owners more successful at survival and reproduction. In this way the whole population undergoes a shift genetically. With enough shifting eventually you can arbitrarily call the population a new species.So how does a question that asks about the first reproducing cell relate to the process of a whole population of them changing genetically?
Stuart
In other words – “I got nothing”…..
Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 23 2009,12:00) Quote (Stu @ April 23 2009,11:31) Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 22 2009,20:26) Quote (WhatIsTrue @ April 22 2009,02:11) How does the first living organism “evolve” the ability to reproduce? Evolution requires reproduction, but the first living organism did not come about through reproduction. The first living organism would have to come about through some form of synthesis. So how does reproduction evolve in such an organism?
Stu,
This is a good question, and warrants a response I think. I'm curious to know how you might answer it.
It is an idiotic question. Firstly there is no scientific theory of abiogenesis, only speculation, although some of it is pretty good speculation. Secondly evolution happens when individuals suffer genetic mutations which, if not deleterious, are passed on to other members of the population thereby increasing the variation in that population. With changes in the environment over time, some genetic traits will make their owners more successful at survival and reproduction. In this way the whole population undergoes a shift genetically. With enough shifting eventually you can arbitrarily call the population a new species.So how does a question that asks about the first reproducing cell relate to the process of a whole population of them changing genetically?
Stuart
In other words – “I got nothing”…..
Did you watch the vid?Stuart
Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 23 2009,13:20) I did. You buy that Stu? Seriously?
Yes. There are alternatives that I also like. The chemistry is sound, and the parts that seem fanciful are not entirely unreasonable.Now it's your turn. Give us the GodDidIt version. The chemistry has to be right, and the mechanisms of 'His' creation have to be at least as plausible as those shown in the video.
Stuart
“Fanciful”, uh yeah, that's for sure. As Norman Geisler said “I don't have enough faith to be an athiest”!
My version is that the Almightly Creator spoke creation into existence. It was a supernatural act by a supernatural being, and no i'm not privy to the details, sorry. Life created life, intellengence created intelligence, a mind created minds etc etc.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
