Login

Join for Free!
114130 members


Big bang and Evoluion

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Re: Big bang and Evoluion

Postby robsabba » Mon Nov 16, 2009 5:03 pm

kk23wong wrote:
"Organic" unequals to "living" tissues.

Living tissues are made up of organic molecules. The term "organic" was originally created to try and differentiate the chemistry of living matter from non-living matter. However, we now know that organic molecules can be created from inorganic precursers. We also know taht organic molecules formed in the solar sytem from inorganic precursers, and probably did so here on earth as well. This is the first step toward abiogenesis. That is really my only point.


kk23wong wrote: Organic food created by genetic engineering. Where the seeds come from?
The seed comes from trees and it is a method of reproduction.

A simple cause-and-effect relationship.

Teru Wong

Life comes from life today on earth, yes. That is because now that life is established any prebiotic replicators will be eaten or outcompeted before they can evolve to an organism. Also, the oxidative environment of today precludes abiogenesis.
User avatar
robsabba
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: North Dakota State University

Re: Big bang and Evoluion

Postby skeptic » Mon Nov 16, 2009 7:46 pm

Wong's arguments remind me of the ancient Greek story of the philosophers in the tavern, and the boy in the stables.

The gathering of philosophers, lubricated well by booze, were having an argument. "How many teeth does a horse have?" Lots of ideas, and no consensus. Then a little boy walked in and said "I know! It is between 36 and 42." And the philosophers poured scorn on the little boy, saying " We are the greatest thinkers in the world, and we cannot agree. How could you, silly little boy, know what we cannot agree on?"

And the boy said " I know, because I went out to the stables and counted them."

Science is not about logic, or faith. It is about empirical study, and data collected empirically. In other words - count the teeth!

Wong has come up with an item of faith - that all living cells must come from previously existing living cells. Wong has no empirical data to demonstrate this idea, but clings to it nevertheless.

So what empirical evidence do we have? How do we 'count the teeth?"
The evidence is found in Earth's ancient rocks. As we study older and older rocks, we find the fossil evidence is of simpler and simpler life forms. Precambrian rocks contain few fossils, since they are all soft bodied, which do not fossilise well. The oldest fossils are of sand grains stuck together and compressed, very like modern day stromatolite (cyanobacteria) structures. That is in Western Australia 3.6 billion years old. The oldest organic traces are found in Canada, 3.8 billion years old, and consist of hydrocarbon material only. If we look at zeolite crystals (which have the property of trapping organic material) found in rocks 4 billion or more years old, there is not even that.

In the same way, those crystals from metorites and other space debris, contain no organic matter.

So, Wong. The oldest remains of 'life' are organic molecules only, and older than that are no remains at all. Clearly, the empirical evidence shows that life began between 3.6 and 4 billion years ago, and at one stage consisted only of organic molecules.
skeptic
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 2:44 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Big bang and Evoluion

Postby kk23wong » Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:07 am

robsabba wrote:
kk23wong wrote:
"Organic" unequals to "living" tissues.

Living tissues are made up of organic molecules. The term "organic" was originally created to try and differentiate the chemistry of living matter from non-living matter. However, we now know that organic molecules can be created from inorganic precursers. We also know taht organic molecules formed in the solar sytem from inorganic precursers, and probably did so here on earth as well. This is the first step toward abiogenesis. That is really my only point.

kk23wong wrote: Organic food created by genetic engineering. Where the seeds come from?
The seed comes from trees and it is a method of reproduction.

A simple cause-and-effect relationship.

Teru Wong


Life comes from life today on earth, yes. That is because now that life is established any prebiotic replicators will be eaten or outcompeted before they can evolve to an organism. Also, the oxidative environment of today precludes abiogenesis.


The Earth is exactly the first cell.

A BRIEF SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION OF LIVES IN DIFFERENT LEVELS

The universe is the “mother cell”.
Then reproduction (cell divisions) occurred.
The Earth (planets / daughter cells) was born (with a cellular structure).
Her life cycles lay on the biosphere in the atmosphere (cytoplasm).

Image
Illustrations: http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/0-jOYG1eZxOfuBCGZnVL8w?feat=directlink

It has fully explained the situations below:
(1) Theory of Evolution = a Process of Growth of Our Planet Earth Herself
(2) Start of Religions = Differences in-between Our Presences – the God (a Conscious Earth) and the Humankind
(3) Presence of water in our only natural satellite = an Insurance Policy
(4) Presence of the ozonosphere = a Self-protection Mechanism
(5) Occurrence of desertification = a Process of Aging

Above all, natural rules are rules of everything.

Controversies:
(1) Absence of living organisms in planets nearby is a non-competition policy.
(2) Bacteria exist in every organism. Therefore, it cannot be used as an offense toward my scientific hypothesis.

Layered (cellular) structure of the Earth is cohesive instead of separated.
Volcanic activities (i.e. Crust) cannot produce our atmosphere (even gravity holds the "cell").
It must come from the outer space.

However, no living organisms can enter the atmosphere from the outer space.
Meanwhile, no cells can survive in the outer space OUTSIDE of the atmosphere.
Then, the so-called “first cell” must enter the Earth AFTER the formation of atmosphere.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

In this case, the interconnection between the space and the Earth is solid.
The Earth must contain the "first cell" in the very beginning.
Our planet Earth must contain "first cell" when she was born.

In another word, the Earth must be a biological entity.
Otherwise, no living organisms can be found on the Earth.
No living organisms can be reproduced without another one (or the initial one).


*BELOW ARE IMPORTANT*

Others may argue that the above only prove that the Earth must have “first cell” in the very beginning. It does not necessarily mean that “lives in different levels” work. Natural rules cannot be violated because it comes from birth. For instance, women give birth instead of men (without interruptions of modern technology). You may argue that this depends on DNA or somehow other scientific terms. However, the source of such a so-called “natural” mechanism must come from “birth”. A common blind spot (or imagination) is that there must be a designer to start all these (natural mechanism). However, the origin of lives can be a living thing herself. Natural rules are inviolable because the one whom start all these is a “mother cell” (a NATURAL supreme being) that gives birth to all of us by cell divisions. The universe is exactly the “mother cell”. Whilst the Earth and other planets are “daughter cells”. Lives have hierarchies. The daughter cell then carries out the natural process of growth (i.e. evolution). This is a completely new concept based on the fact – the “first cell” must be the Earth. Cell divisions can be internal (inside a living thing).

Some may argue that, “the first cell is not the Earth but a single cell inside the Earth in the very beginning”. Then, who put it inside the Earth in the very beginning? As a result, “lives in different levels” is a universal hypothesis that fully explained the origin of lives. Other beliefs are unscientific. The origin of lives on this planet is our mother cell (the Earth).

Then, desertification cannot be reverted (I repeat, oasis is an independent system -- “cold-island effects”). By applying the hypothesis “lives in different level” onto the Earth, desertification must be a process of aging. As I mentioned earlier, supplies of clean water and food will probably run out before it has accomplished. (Clean water supply depends on the diminishing and polluted rivers. Less precipitation caused by increases in global temperature. Poultry feed on crops. Therefore, farming products are at the base of our food supplies.) This day will not be far.

Lastest satellite images avaliable at:
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/g6HwJXMrvaKD0zYoXhWKWA?feat=directlink
It gives you a concrete idea on the current distribution of desert and dryland.

Desertification is an on-going process and it is not reversible.
Meanwhile, the Earth MUST be a biological entity.
It is the only logical reason account for presence of lives on the Earth.

What do you think Biologists? I am asking you about the TIME.

Teru Wong
Use Smartphone to Find More Information On My Image
User avatar
kk23wong
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:53 pm
Location: Hong Kong, CN


Re: Big bang and Evoluion

Postby Gabrielwer » Wed Sep 07, 2011 9:17 am

When I do this they show me a picture of a monkey and say that is not my grandfather looks like. Or they say the big bang states something came from nothing. If they don't want to hear anything that does not support their agenda then why ask me in the first place. I don't go around asking how God created stuff. I tell them that I don't want to answer but they insist so they can start a fight. How do I make them stop doing this?
Gabrielwer
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 9:11 am

Previous

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron