Natural selection and logic

[factsfinder]

i am assuming that evolution is caused by a natural selection without any interruptions
by a third power such as what we called god or whatever,my questions are

1 - Who created or how it could be produced the first cell as the first ancestor
for all living organisms from nothing.

2 - who controlled the process of evolution,the nature did choose the bird to fly
or the bird itself chose to fly or booth agreed to do so,in the first case, the nature
is unconscious and got no mind to think for evolving a wing for the bird in order to
fly ,so that is impossible,the second case,the bird itself started to make wings,that
is also impossible that the bird will think and manage to create his wings ,what a clever
bird and a good designer,so we got in booth cases an impossible results,and in logic
off + off never equal on or false + false never equal true so impossible + impossible
will never equal possible.

3- human and chimpanzee have one common ancestor,so who is the first ancestor
for human and chimpanzee,was he look more to chimpanzees or to humans,did
the nature chose some to be chimpanzees and monkeys...etc and the others to
be humans,the nature is unconscious and can not manage to produce from a common
ancestor,a clever human being able to think and invent plus the ability to talk in a different
way than all other mammals in the world,so that is impossible case,do the ancestor divide
himself to human and chimpanzee by his choice,that is also impossible ,the same results in logic,
both false results will never equal correct.

So,natural selection by means of logic is not accepted and cant be applied to all creations.

[ughaibu]

1 - Who created or how it could be produced the first cell as the first ancestor for all living organisms from nothing.

Your question includes assumptions that you'll need to make explicit and defend. For example, I see no reason to suppose that there was a first cell which was an ancestor to all living organisms, you need to be clear about what this assertion of yours means and give an argument in support of it. Abiogenesis is the thesis that life developed from non-life, and on the face of it, this is true by tautology. It is not the claim that life developed from "nothing", so you'll need to clear up the apparent confusion in your assertion about that, too.

Moderators: why am I apparently unable to quote or italicise?

[factsfinder]

Your question includes assumptions that you'll need to make explicit and defend. For example, I see no reason to suppose that there was a first cell which was an ancestor to all living organisms, you need to be clear about what this assertion of yours means and give an argument in support of it. Abiogenesis is the thesis that life developed from non-life, and on the face of it, this is true by tautology

There is no evidence that live started from lifeless matter,and also note that when we say lifeless
matter,then we separate life from matter,so there is a living matter and a lifeless matter,so logically
also life is different than the matter and cant be a characteristic or a structure of all matters,so we can approve that life simply started from a lifeless matter by inducing similar life in any matter in our labs,but that seems impossible for all of us to induce life to any matter.

Let me give an example that if we were able to made a rabbit with heart,lung...etc,then we will stop
at one point,how to make all such things to work,what makes it work is life,so to me a non living matter
or "nothing" makes no difference in my point of view

[ughaibu]

There is no evidence that live started from lifeless matter. . . .

This thread is ostensibly concerned with logical issues. Either there has always been life, or life came from non-life. This is uncontroversial under a classical logic.

[ughaibu]

Moderators: why am I apparently unable to quote or italicise?

Sorted.

[JackBean]

So,natural selection by means of logic is not accepted and cant be applied to all creations.

So, it can be applied to some creations?

[factsfinder]

So, it can be applied to some creations?

can not applied to all the creations,yes,not some,if we agree that the organism got no power to change his
creation by himself and have no ability to do so and the other factor is the nature which is unconscious
and got no mind to do so,so the 2 factors are false which in logic will lead to false result,but if in case
that we will accept that the nature is conscious and can make such changes to the organism then we
got in logic one "ON" and if the organism got no power to make changes then in logic we got one
"OFF",in this case we may got an "ON",in other words

.... OFF .... AND .... OFF .... = ...... OFF
.. "Nature" ...... "Organism" .... "Natural Selection"

.... OFF .... OR .... OFF ....= ........ OFF
.."Nature" ...... "Organism" .... "Natural Selection"

....OFF .... AND .... ON ....= ........ OFF
.."Nature" ...... "Organism" .... "Natural Selection"

....OFF .... OR .... ON .... = ......... ON
.."Nature" ...... "Organism" .... "Natural Selection"

[AstraSequi]

Your question includes assumptions that you'll need to make explicit and defend.

I think that the main one is along the lines of, "Certain biological occurrences are impossible without a decision-making entity that makes an explicit choice to bring those things about."

Those occurrences are then listed as 1) formation of a cell from a noncellular precursor, 2) evolution of the wing, and 3) speciation of humans and chimpanzees.