Evolution
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Ignacio Espinoza

Claremont, CA

#1 Jan 21, 2014
I have an honest question for evolutionists. I'm sorry if it sounds like a stupid question because I'm not super learned in the topic. Evolutionists account for the complexity of life by means of random mutation and natural selection. As life progresses, those two mechanisms cause organisms to become increasingly more complex because natural selection is favoring the organisms that have the greatest flexibility in genetic mutation. If that is the case, reversing time means the organism becomes increasingly less complex until you get to life's origin. So here is my question: if the original common ancestor was not nearly as refined for survival as life is today, how did it survive?

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#2 Jan 21, 2014
Ignacio Espinoza wrote:
I have an honest question for evolutionists. I'm sorry if it sounds like a stupid question because I'm not super learned in the topic. Evolutionists account for the complexity of life by means of random mutation and natural selection. As life progresses, those two mechanisms cause organisms to become increasingly more complex because natural selection is favoring the organisms that have the greatest flexibility in genetic mutation. If that is the case, reversing time means the organism becomes increasingly less complex until you get to life's origin. So here is my question: if the original common ancestor was not nearly as refined for survival as life is today, how did it survive?
Evolution through mutation and natural selection have resulted in more complex organisms, but it isn't a requirement. Many parasitic organisms and troglobitic organisms are less complex than their ancestors but highly adapted to their environments all the same.

The earliest organism would have been microbial life like bacteria and they would have survived much the same way that bacteria survive today. The early lifeforms would have been well adapted to their environments and those that weren't would have died off. These organisms would have been simpler than say vertebrates, but they still would have carried out complex biochemical reactions as part of their lives.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#3 Jan 21, 2014
Let's say that the first life was not all that well adapted to its environment. Every time it had offspring there would be some variation in those offspring. The ones that were more fit for the particular environment that they existed in would be more likely to survive to adulthood and be more likely to reproduce. Their young would have variation too and again the ones that were the most efficient would be the one most likely to survive and reproduce.

Life is always improving. Very slightly but it is always finding new ways to survive.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#4 Jan 21, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
Let's say that the first life was not all that well adapted to its environment. Every time it had offspring there would be some variation in those offspring. The ones that were more fit for the particular environment that they existed in would be more likely to survive to adulthood and be more likely to reproduce. Their young would have variation too and again the ones that were the most efficient would be the one most likely to survive and reproduce.
Life is always improving. Very slightly but it is always finding new ways to survive.
So what you are saying that mutations happened in every generation and affected many of that generation? How did that play out when their was only one life form and only one of it?

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#5 Jan 21, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
Let's say that the first life was not all that well adapted to its environment. Every time it had offspring there would be some variation in those offspring. The ones that were more fit for the particular environment that they existed in would be more likely to survive to adulthood and be more likely to reproduce. Their young would have variation too and again the ones that were the most efficient would be the one most likely to survive and reproduce.
Life is always improving. Very slightly but it is always finding new ways to survive.
Sub there was no DNA to mutate and the RNA, it would be safe to say did not really have any information to build off of. So how does all that pan out?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#6 Jan 21, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
So what you are saying that mutations happened in every generation and affected many of that generation? How did that play out when their was only one life form and only one of it?
Even the first life form mutated slightly. Perhaps not with every split since it was so simple, but sooner or later some of its splits would be slightly different from the parent organism. The splits which were better would have reproduced more prolifically, eventually becoming the "species".

Sooner or later due two separated species would keep changing until they were no longer the same species. Each would be more finely tuned to its particular environment than its "distant" ancestors.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#7 Jan 21, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
Let's say that the first life was not all that well adapted to its environment. Every time it had offspring there would be some variation in those offspring. The ones that were more fit for the particular environment that they existed in would be more likely to survive to adulthood and be more likely to reproduce. Their young would have variation too and again the ones that were the most efficient would be the one most likely to survive and reproduce.
Life is always improving. Very slightly but it is always finding new ways to survive.
I fail to understand why people keep coming up with the idea that there would be only a single individual organism at the dawn of life. There isn't any rule that says that should be so. Shortsighted, ignorant and unimaginative apparently. Since there are so many possible mechanisms known that could potentially launch prebiotic to biotic it is conceivably possible that life arose more than once. What we have today may be what is left from a millions of years of early competition. This following chemical evolution on a geological time scale.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#8 Jan 21, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Sub there was no DNA to mutate and the RNA, it would be safe to say did not really have any information to build off of. So how does all that pan out?
We don't know yet exactly what the first life use. It was more probably RNA, and RNA just like DNA, can mutate. Why do you assume that there could be no information in those early RNA molecules?

The existence of life and the fact that we observe evolution is strong evidence of abiogenesis.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#9 Jan 21, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't know yet exactly what the first life use. It was more probably RNA, and RNA just like DNA, can mutate. Why do you assume that there could be no information in those early RNA molecules?
The existence of life and the fact that we observe evolution is strong evidence of abiogenesis.
If life just naturally formed and arose from a soup, puddle, pond or whatever you want to call it, where did any information come from to build off of?

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#10 Jan 21, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't know yet exactly what the first life use. It was more probably RNA, and RNA just like DNA, can mutate. Why do you assume that there could be no information in those early RNA molecules?
The existence of life and the fact that we observe evolution is strong evidence of abiogenesis.
Now I am just trying to get on the same page as your on so here goes; So you believe we should be able to take the periodical chart, throw a some of it together with a little lightning and heat and it will produce life having RNA and then it will later produce DNA? Is that what the evidence shows you?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#11 Jan 21, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
If life just naturally formed and arose from a soup, puddle, pond or whatever you want to call it, where did any information come from to build off of?
Haven't you ever watched the video that I posted on abiogenesis? And calling it "information" is a self prejudicing term. There is surely a better term that you can think of.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#12 Jan 21, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Haven't you ever watched the video that I posted on abiogenesis? And calling it "information" is a self prejudicing term. There is surely a better term that you can think of.
I did. And I have also watched video's of Underdog and Spiderman but that does not make them true.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#13 Jan 21, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I did. And I have also watched video's of Underdog and Spiderman but that does not make them true.
If you want to be an idiot then no one can help you.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#14 Jan 21, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
If you want to be an idiot then no one can help you.
Hmmm an idiot calling someone an idiot. That is always the first response from an idiot. If someone being classified as an idiot is based upon what you say then I would have to say they are poorly judged. As I said once before when you are dead you won't know you are dead but everyone around you will,,, it is the same when you are stupid.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#15 Jan 22, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmm an idiot calling someone an idiot. That is always the first response from an idiot. If someone being classified as an idiot is based upon what you say then I would have to say they are poorly judged. As I said once before when you are dead you won't know you are dead but everyone around you will,,, it is the same when you are stupid.
Sorry replaytime, but you are the only one who has shown that he is an idiot here, countless times.

I made a mistake, I tried to treat you like a thinking human being.. Thanks for proving me wrong.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#16 Jan 22, 2014
Ignacio Espinoza wrote:
I have an honest question for evolutionists. I'm sorry if it sounds like a stupid question because I'm not super learned in the topic.
The question itself is not stupid. But calling someone an "evolutionist" just for accepting that biology is real would be like calling someone a "gravitationalist" for accepting gravity.
Ignacio Espinoza wrote:
Evolutionists account for the complexity of life by means of random mutation and natural selection. As life progresses, those two mechanisms cause organisms to become increasingly more complex
Not necessarily more complex. Sometimes less complex, because mutations can take away genetic material as well as add, or simply change it.
Ignacio Espinoza wrote:
because natural selection is favoring the organisms that have the greatest flexibility in genetic mutation.
Single organisms don't have flexibility as they only have one genome. You have only one genome, specific to you, which is made up of over 3 billion DNA bases. Populations have flexibility because they have LOTS of genomes. Example, humans have a population of over 7 billion, with each individual genome being slightly different. Therefore there's lots of variation. Flexibility comes from variation. Therefore if say, some new disease crops up trying to wipe us out, it's likely that some humans will survive as some may be susceptible to the disease while others aren't.
Ignacio Espinoza wrote:
If that is the case, reversing time means the organism becomes increasingly less complex until you get to life's origin. So here is my question: if the original common ancestor was not nearly as refined for survival as life is today, how did it survive?
Simple organisms are more robust. The more complexity, the more things that can go wrong. But more complex organisms can still survive anyway because of the flexibility inherent in variation.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#17 Jan 22, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Sub there was no DNA to mutate and the RNA, it would be safe to say did not really have any information to build off of. So how does all that pan out?
RNA produced more RNA, which produced even more RNA. Now we have more information to build off of.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#18 Jan 22, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
If life just naturally formed and arose from a soup, puddle, pond or whatever you want to call it, where did any information come from to build off of?
The physical elements themselves that were around at the time that were responsible.

You're doing a Bo aren't you, with this whole "information" thing?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#19 Jan 22, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmm an idiot calling someone an idiot. That is always the first response from an idiot. If someone being classified as an idiot is based upon what you say then I would have to say they are poorly judged. As I said once before when you are dead you won't know you are dead but everyone around you will,,, it is the same when you are stupid.
Actually you tend to be called an idiot due to your long history of being an idiot.(shrug)

Because let's face it Repro, all you're REALLY interested in is saying "You guys don't know the meaning of life thereforeYOU'RE DUM, HA HA HA HA HAAAAA!!!" Even though it's quite obvious you're oblivious to science period and every non-fundie knows a heck of a lot more than you do.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#20 Jan 22, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually you tend to be called an idiot due to your long history of being an idiot.(shrug)
Because let's face it Repro, all you're REALLY interested in is saying "You guys don't know the meaning of life thereforeYOU'RE DUM, HA HA HA HA HAAAAA!!!" Even though it's quite obvious you're oblivious to science period and every non-fundie knows a heck of a lot more than you do.
I think replaytime gets to me more than bohart and other truly idiotic fundies is that it is fairly obvious that bohart and defender were born with very limited intellects. That is not the case with replaytime, he has on occasion shown that he can learn. His problem s a self imposed idiocy when it comes to abiogenesis. Instead of even thinking of how it could have happened his brain freezes. It seems for him that he can allow his personal god to let evolution happen, but not abiogenesis.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 min One way or another 205,052
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 10 min Eagle 12 18,568
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Aura Mytha 43,217
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr Dogen 151,483
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 4 hr ChristineM 915
Questions about first life 4 hr FallenGeologist 11
Carbon and isotopic dating are a lie 5 hr One way or another 16
More from around the web