Is it possible to know the origin of species without knowing the origin of life?
Is to know how life evolves or changes into new species knowing the origin of species? I do not see how understanding the changing of life is understanding the origin of life.
Is the origin of species misleading for not knowing how life's first species began? How do you know how the first species began when not knowing how first life began?
Simply put, No. If there was no life, then there would be no species.
Species is a human word which allows to Identify different life-forms and to classify them.
This is not a surprise with your limited view. I said it before and I'll say it again, so much for your name "truthdebater".
You want to know the origin of species, look up when the word was first created. Hence, the beginning of species. But, not life or life forms.
Actually, I just answered that question, because the origin of life is not the same as the origin of species. However, if you want the best answer to the origin of life, then take Dave Barnett's answer and accept it, instead of using your limited understanding and calling it a illusion.
Just a thought.
Thanks Cagsil. You must not have had time to read my response at the bottom where I wrote it is an agenda to believe as you and Dave believe without any supporting evidence. Again, abiogenesis is theory, not fact. It is a weak theory at that, who has the limited view? I don't limit myself to believing theories without evidence. You think you can define origin of species without origin of life because "if no life, no species"? Exactly, origin of species doesn't exist without defining origin of life, thanks.
Amino acids are contained on meteors. Amino acids are the 'building blocks of life' without them there wouldn't be life on Earth.
There is evidence that life never originated on Earth. It is an ongoing search for the other half, it's origin. We only know what we know now and part of that is that it didn't start here on Earth.
Because this does not fall into the tale of tales ie: the bible, people will not accept it as evidence. There is also evidence that Earth did not start as an oasis. Volcanic activity, the meteor came down, it created the gas that created our atmosphere. It also created 'water', the combination of heat and gas collected in our newly formed atmosphere and fell down as water... the ocean.
With that, the temperature became right, the amino acids amongst other elements like carbon resulted in a single living cell or many at one time, who knows but life did not spontaneously appear on Earth by god.
It started somewhere else. That is just a quick 5th grade synopsis to help you understand how you are confusing the 'origins of life' to have started on Earth when it did not.
Thanks. What are you talking about and why are you making things up? Where did I assume life did start on earth and it was created by a God? Not nice to make things up.
Your information was very informative and interesting besides your assumptions.
Leading theories in abiogenesis still theorize that life started on earth. It's not fact life started from a meteroid because amino acids were found.
I never said it did. So you are still confusing something. I never even called anything a fact however I did state that 'life' did not originate on Earth.
So you are saying you don't believe god created life?
Thanks. How do you know that life didn't originate on earth? Maybe it didn't , but how do you know it didn't?
No, I don't have a clue how life began. What makes you ask this?
A good clue would be that Earth doesn't shoot meteors out into space... so amino acids are here and out there.
Thanks. I am not a biologist or doctor. We have the amino acids here as well yet we can't put it together to create a living cell from scratch. Can you please explain to me how we know that life came from elsewhere simply from amino acids? Amino acids may form many places, but does this mean life will be created by them coming together?
I didn't say amino acids were the only thing life is made of. You aren't paying attention. It's possible you are just blazing by looking to support your own thoughts without giving any real thought the the things that people are presenting to you.
It's pretty simple. If amino acids are 'the building blocks of life' meaning, no amino acids, not life period. We know that those acids can and are found outside of Earth out in space.
If you can explain how it got from Earth into space, then explain that to me and I might change my mind.
There was actually a man who did 'create' life using amino acids in his lab. google it.
Thanks. I am reading what you write with an open mind. I am just asking questions for specification so I know what you are talking about.
How are "we" sure that it takes amino acids for life? Could there not be other ways we don't know of in which life could form?
I don't know how the amino acids got on the meteorite, I am just saying it doesn't mean there was life simply because the possibility was there.
I will check it out, but it simply goes to show that even creating amino acids still hasn't created a living cell, and this has been quite a while ago if I am correct?
Try some reading in following order:
If you insert theology into this then you'll waste a lot of time away from facts. And discussion is likely to move towards creationism vs evolution for which you'll not get empirical evidence from creationism.
Thanks skyfire. I always enjoy your comments, good or bad. I agree the conversation can take many paths leading to many assumptions. I also agree abiogenesis before evolution. The part I do not agree to is misleadings, whether it be by religions or science. We don't know how life originated, so many take the opportunity to take advantage. I am questioning if we can fully understand evolution without first understanding origination.
Life formed here from million years of evolution. From lifeless planet to environment and then-to life. You can understand life without having to know how it was originated. You can learn about speciation without knowing abiogenesis. You can learn about how species adapt without knowing abiogenesis. Abiogenesis and evolution both serves different purpose and they don't need to complete each other.
Not fully known but explained to some extent. Because our lifespan and observation has it's limit. The stuff that evolution gives you is a fact which you can even verify.
Thanks. I don't know if I agree with formed until it is replicated. I also don't disagree with it. Again, I agree evolution helps to learn many things of how life changes and adapts. How can it be known the origin of the first species when the origin of the first life is unknown? I agree it can be known the origin of a species to some extent when it first changes into a different species, but I don't think this tells the origin of the very first species in life. I agree evolution is fact, but I think it leaves out choice.
Whether you agree or not the truth is that we've managed to create single cell life form in lab. Now what is left for us to do is to study the speciation and adaption for that life form. This takes time and won't happen overnight. Our results will definitely vary and it's not 100% possible to guess the environment during the formation of first cell on this planet.
Thanks. I respect your comments, but you have false information. The synthetic cell is not a created cell. I agree it is complicated to guess the environment of the first life, all the more reason it shouldn't be assumed that life formed on it's own here.
Synthetic cell is not a created cell ? then what is it ?
Thanks. It is a modified cell. They used an already living cell and changed how it functions by changing the genome.
Thanks. So as per you they created modified cell which self replicates ? which is not created ? LOL.
Thanks. There is a difference from creating a cell from basic elements and changing how an already living cell functions and reproduces.
Speaking of misinformation: http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/ … 051002.asp
Thanks. The link also says provide a "basis" for creating life from scratch, not that it created life from scratch already.
Really ? I think you skim the page ignoring the part "replicating" which trashes your argument about two things : basic elements and life formation. If the cell is replicating how come it possibly does that without basic elements and is not a cell formation from scratch ?
TB is right. The cell was not created, it was modified. Much like a cloned embryo is made from an existing embryo. No one has gone from chemical to a cell yet. One from one type of cell to another type of cell.
Thanks. What do you mean replicates without basic elements? It has basic elements before they programmed it. From scratch would be putting the entire cell together then bringing it to life. The synthetic cell is from scratch after life. They cell they programmed was already alive to begin with. If it was a dead cell they made and brought to life, this would be from scratch.
Thanks.If you were to revive a person that had just drowned, would this be creating them from scratch? If you put a person together and brought them to life, then I think this would be creating them from scratch. I don't think they revived a dead cell, I think it was a live during the transplant.
Thanks. No the replication had the basic elements of a living complete cell to begin with, this is why I think they say "basis" for forming life from scratch. The program of the genome was written from scratch, so yes I agree this is creation to an extent, but lacking complete creation of life from scratch or inanimate elements. If the program is created for the cell to reproduce, I think the reproduced cells would be created to an extent, but still formed/originated from an already living cell.
Thanks. To an extent meaning progress and success in making a paradigm shift in what we are capable of, but not answering how life began from a dead universe. Even Venter, the head of the synthetic cell research says we are a long ways off from creating life from scratch. If you don't believe what I write, research him and you will find him quoted on this.
They have more answers in forming one, not a fully detailed process. Who knows how long it could take to build a cell from the elements, then how long after could it take in finding out how to bring it to life?
Also to an extent, I agree they created what the synthetic cell will reproduce as, but they didn't create the origin of the synthetic cell. The reproduction is part their credit for creation, but not all because they didn't originate and replicate how life begins, only how it reproduces.
Thanks. Your argument about basic elements and cell from scratch is flawed. Just because there is replication but not original cell from the synthetic cell information doesn't mean there is no creation.
Do you understand the flaw ? Forming a cell and bring it to life ? LOL. So as per you is it possible to create dead cell from the available information in that experiment.
Thanks. I gave them half credit for creation of the cells reproduction into new cells. I do not see this as the same as building a cell from scratch and bringing it to life to simulate beginning of life. Please explain how they explain how life began? If the synthetic cell is life from scratch, an explanation of how life began should be pretty easy. I didn't say it's already possible to create a dead cell and bring it to life, I agree that it provides a basis and clearer understand of how the cells function.
Aim of that experiment was not to find how life began, but to create a cell first.
Thanks. I agree. But by your reasoning, this explains how life began. It doesn't because it's not the same thing as creating life from inanimate material. I think we disagree on reproduction being origin. Reproduction is origin to an extent, just not absolute origin.
what difference would it make if you knew for sure the origin of life? No-one was there, so no-one knows for sure. We do know that species evolve and species become extinct.
"TB is right. The cell was not created, it was modified. Much like a cloned embryo is made from an existing embryo. No one has gone from chemical to a cell yet. One from one type of cell to another type of cell."
Thank You psyche. He doesn't believe me. He put up a strong debate, he almost had me not believing me. lol
LOL. Your argument is that synthetic cell and the replication is without the basic elements and is not at all creation which is flawed which i showed you.
Thanks. That is dishonest, that is not my argument. The basic elements they used were already put together in the living cell. The created elements was the synthetic genome.
If that was not your honest argument then how come my reasoning was this in quote:
Care to explain my reasoning ?
Thanks. Your reasoning was that synthetic cell is created life from scratch. If this is so, it should explain how life originated.
My argument was we managed to create life in lab not how life began in that post.
Thanks. But we didn't completely create life in the lab, we altered it.
We've data to create life completely. That experiment was replication with basic elements as i said in previous post.
Thanks. How do you know we have this date of building or growing an entire cell when we only have data of making a genome? A cell has many more complex parts than a genome. Please read about cells.
Thanks. Even if you are correct, there is then the task of bringing it to life. If creating a robot cell not modeling natural conditions in which you believe life formed, do you think this shows how life formed under natural conditions?
I cannot speak for everybody but I have to say that if humans in this day and age have been able to scientifically prove that a certain species did in fact evolve from what that species was in order to preserve it's life, then how can you honestly say that evolution holds no weight?
There is physcial proof of this animal being that way X years ago and now it is this way. Where is the argument?
O, I think it holds a lot of weight in explaining the changing of one species into the other, just not explaining the origin of all species. I think the title is a little misleading when it doesn't truly explain the origin of species, rather the changing. What do you think? Thanks
Understanding the origin of life is rather easy if you follow scientific thought on the matter. Electro chemical reactions when the primordial world ocean existed created single cell organisms from a chemical mineral "soup". These all developed into more advanced creatures through the process of evolution.
A recent find in africa maybe our true ancestor, and it predates lucy by over amillion years. It was an upright, flatfaced forest dweller, more advanced than lucy
Thanks. How easy can it be when it can't be replicated? I think they have done a good job of convincing many that life was a simple chance mix of chemicals in chance conditions.
Actually, hate to disappoint, but they have recreated such conditions in the lab, but it is unsustainable "in captivity" paraphrasing, of course.
over a very long time - we can't replicate that because our lifespans are too short
Thank you, Dave, you said it better than I could!
That's OK, you're still one smart Chiquina
Thanks. What did Dave say better than you could have? That he is under the illusion that science knows how life began? Don't worry, many think this. It seems like a scientific agenda to have people buy that life began by chance in a bubbly moat without us being able to replicate it. Abiogenesis is theory, not fact.
Not by "chance" but because of a defined set of circumstances and conditions, all of which, had there been someone to do so, could have been predicted from the beginning(let's say the big bang) you see, you are under the same delusion about me. Some in this forum, think I'm a rabid christian evangelist.
Thanks. You are losing credibility. First you falsely believe life has already been created in the lab, then you don't have honesty to admit you were wrong. How do you know life formed on it's own when no one else does? What is your evidence and maybe you should help scientists since they haven't figured out how to replicate it. Could have been predicted? Funny, quantum physics currently understanding predicting the future is impossible.
This is just silly semantic quibbling. "On the Origin of Species" is the name of Darwin's book detailing his theory of evolution. Could it have been named better? Maybe, but the fact that Darwin could have done a better job picking the title does not affect the validity of his scientific reasoning in the least.
The theory of evolution itself deals with the question of how one species might, over hundreds of thousands or millions of years, turn from one species into another. Period.
It does not deal with the question of the origin of life itself because that is not its purpose. We have other theories dealing with the question of the origin of life... and you'll note those theories have nothing to say about evolution.
There are occasional attempts to devise a "Theory of Everything" but at this point, it hasn't been done. In the meantime, scientific theories will continue to focus on specific explanations for specific phenomenons or sets of phenomena.
Thanks kerry. I agree it's point is to explain the change of life and not the origin. As I asked skyfire above, do you think the change of life is complete without knowing the origin of life? Darwin even claimed he and everyone is ignorant at knowing every mean in which life evolves, do you think we know everything today?
I think it will be shown that much science, like religion, can lead to many assumptions. With abiogenesis theories, many believe scientists have already discovered how life originated. Want proof? Read the threads, at least 4 people have assumed we/science has already discoved the origins of life.
"As I asked skyfire above, do you think the change of life is complete without knowing the origin of life?"
Absolutely. It is not the point of the theory of evolution to explain the origin of life. We have other theories doing that - dozens of them. We do not currently know which one is correct (or if none of them are, or if several of them in combination are), but that doesn't mean we will never figure it out.
Thanks. I agree again that it is not the point of evolution to define origin of life. I am claiming that it is incomplete without the origin of life. Do you think every part of evolution is fully known and explained? I agree it sheds light and explains much to an extent.
"I am claiming that it is incomplete without the origin of life."
I disagree and have explained why twice already. Not going to repeat myself a third time.
"Do you think every part of evolution is fully known and explained?"
No, of course not, but I think it's ridiculous to claim that anything is "fully known and explained." Scientists are constantly expanding our base of knowledge in virtually any topic you can imagine.
Moreover, the fact that we don't know every single minute detail about how evolution works does not mean that what we DO know about it is any less accurate.
It all comes down to the lightning bolt.
The amino acids in the primordial soup got hit by a bolt of lightning and became animate "alive."
What TruthDebater wants to argue, I believe, is whether God sent the lightning bolt, or it just happened randomly. (We all know where TD stands on that one.)
Welcome back to same, unending ontological debate.
We still don't really know, and lots of people with tatty old books that were written millions and millions of years after the lightening bolt claim their tatty old book has all the answers. Modern folks think their new science books SUGGEST a better possible answer than magic. But nobody KNOWS because YouTube wasn't around when it happened, so nobody posted it. We're stuck with the books for now.
Thanks Shadesbreath. Where do I stand? Can you define my beliefs for me with your assumptions?
What evidence do you have life started by amino acids getting hit by a lightning bolt? Some abiogenesis theories state life could have started in the ocean around heat vents. I am really amazed at how many people buy the theories on origin of life without testable repeatable evidence.
That's called equivocation. The point was that what you are really seeking is a God versus not-god argument. And it doesn't matter if it's heat vents or lightning, you are going to end up asking, "Who heated the vents?" or "Who sent the lighting?" or who did whatever. My purpose in writing what I wrote and including the YouTube comment was pretty clear to anyone reading for the purpose of having an actual exchange of ideas.
So yes, I can "define your beliefs for you" because I don't delude myself for one second to think you actually are wondering if life occured without God. I think you "already know" and your just hoping to catch those who you can manipulate into making arguments they can't support very well.
Unless you actually saying that you truly don't have an opinion and that all that stuff you've ever written before has been called into doubt, and you are genuinely curious without any predrawn conclusions.
I would love to see you say that without finding some way to cringe and qualify your way out of having to admit you have no idea what really happened. I seriously doubt you're capable of that. At best you can must a "I know what I believe" or "I know in my heart" kind of thing. Which is fine, but meaningless.
Lol, I see it is impossible to have an intelligent conversation with you and your mountain of false assumptions. What is the point in conversating when a person assumes they already know what I will say? Then you question if I have any predrawn biased conclusions as you just wrote about me without evidence? If you would read above, I already answered Sandra that I don't know what or how life began.
Why can no one know anything without youtube?
It's impossible to have an intelligent conversation with someone who simply answers any statement with a statement that is in effect "why?" like children elementary school do. While it appears to be "a real conversation" it isn't. When practiced by someone older than 10, it is less amusing.
Child: Who made that cake?
Adult: So we could have dessert.
Adult: Because dessert is nice after a meal.
Adult: Because it's sweet.
Adult: Because there's sugar in it.
Adult: Because sugar is how you make things sweet.
Adult: Just because that's what they use.
Adult: <exhausted> I don't know why.
Child: I win.
Thanks. Not really, but at least you didn't make as many false assumptions this time. I simply asked you to explain your comment, sorry you got offended.
and then along came zeus
he hurled his thunderbolts and zapped
and on his own stopped chaos in its tracks
and that's the gospel truth
the guy was too type A to just relax!
-The Muses, Hercules Movie Disney
You know, in another thread you and I were agreeing that there are plausible connections to what science supposes and the old religious texts. Greek and Roman mythology has just as much if not more that can be used in similar fashion. Just need a good imagination.
"you must seek out, Philoctetes, trainer of heroes."
I don't know why there was need for such remark. He came up with good threads so far. It doesn't matter what he believes in or not. Atleast he accepts science where it is necessary unlike some deluded ones in this forum. Can we have a good debate without such remarks ?
of course you can know the origin of species without knowing the origin of life.
They are different things. Once life was created, it started replicating. Then those replications got classified via certain characteristics (chiefly, their reproductive classifications)
and that's how we talk about the origin of species.
As far as natural selection and domestic selection, why is recognition given to choice of us to breed animals, but no recognition is given to animals choice in evolving? Is there choice in evolution of what the life chooses within the determinism of what nature selects or chooses?
We don't evolve cause we choose to, we evolve because we need to, and it is time.
that's not quite accurate.
organisms don't ever NEED to evolve. They just sort of do.
Fact #1 - offspring get the vast majority of their genetic make up from their parents.
Fact #2 - some of their genetic information is different. These differences can be thought of as mutations.
Fact #3 - environments change.
These three facts pretty much sum up everything that evolution argues. It isn't that anything NEEDs to evolve, it just happens because of chance and change. There are still animals around from millions of years ago (Coelacanths, for example), and they just simply haven't been weeded out by their environment yet.
It isn't really a need or a choice. It just happens. That's all.
If you say that an organism needs to evolve, then it is equally valid to say that an environment needs to change.
no. no choices. Mutations lead to increased survivability.
The increased survivability leads to more reproduction; leads to more of the surviving genetic information.
That's all evolution is.
New species spring up when two "genetic diverged" organisms are incapable / refuse to mate.
For example, chihuahuas can be considered a different species from great danes - they just can't mate!
And for another example, Chimpanzees and Humans MIGHT be able to mate (we're closer to chimpanzees genetically than horses are to donkeys), but they ... well... they choose not to.
Another example of choice leading to speciation: Hitler would never choose to mate with a Jewish woman (or something like that), so it COULD be argued that they have speciated.
Thanks. In sexual selection, why do animals choose to evolve attracting or appealing characteristics besides what they already have? Why does the opposite sex choose which to mate with based on the characteristics? If it was just genetic determinism, it seems visual appeal wouldn't matter in which to select. When the animals are selecting which to mate with, they are predicting the future of which will provide the strongest possible offspring, this is why males compete so often to please females. If only genetic determinism, would the females look ahead to choose which they think will provide the strongest offspring if we are only programmed by the current environment?
The choice is in the response. The diversity we see is due to the choices of responses. You can have the same conditions but the response is different.Some would have successful adaptive mutations and some would not. While one species will choose to freeze, another would choose to flee, hence you have freezing creatures and fleeing creatures. It is a habit of choice that cause mutation.
A dinosaur chooses to catch prey from a tree by jumping at it, it will progressively grow flaps under its arms. A dinosaur chooses to chase a particular fast moving prey, it will develop strong hind legs and no wings. it is the habit of response that causes the mutation.
Thanks cecilia. I agree with you.
Like the brain, I also think genes are plastic. If a parent makes changes in life on what they choose, I think this alters the genes. So I think this shows free will and choice in genes rather than absolute determinism by genetics. I think the points also show evidence there may be choice that determines some mutations. What do you think of this?
TD, you must have read my article on Choice.
Choice determines all mutations, by its own necessity to survive. It effects whatever else within its reach, generating further mutations of itself, like radioactive lifespans, ever depreciating.
Thanks Twenty. I did not read it, but it is interesting we have the same thought on the subject. I will check it out.
Oooh...me too. I will read it!
There are people who do operate as mechanisms. You can be made to think that you have a choice when in fact you were herded somewhere by an external force to a place you thought you chose, in today's terms its called marketing.
Well it is not the genes that are plastic, it is the membrane. It is the one opening and closing up the genes. It is the one choosing. It is the one responding to the environment. The fetal brain itself begins as three layers of derm that mirrors the three layers of our own membrane, our own skin. Essentially the skin (our membrane) is an outer brain.
No. That's what you think about my opinion.
That's because we're talking about synthetic cell, right ?
Yup. Our point of argument here is "basic elements" and "absolute origin" right ? stick with it.
by GA Anderson2 years ago
A new thread prompted by by a current discussion. Is Darwinism a scientific explanation, or just another belief system?Bbrerean, Wilderness, and EncephaloiDead have been going round and round in a debate relating to...
by Mark Knowles4 years ago
Some one just accused me of making a personal attack on them because I said they are ignorant of certain facts. Any one who has interacted with me here will know I try not to make personal attacks, other than to make...
by TMMason7 years ago
Lies Propagated by Socailists, Communists, Liberals, Atheists, Scientists, Leant Leftists & American haters.What lies have you heard the come out with. i can name at least a few.1- Man Made Global Warming.2- The...
by fallenangel6666 years ago
I do not pigeon hole myself as a Creationist, Agnostic or Atheist, but rather as a person who attempts to retain an open mind. Any talk of proof either way is simply delusional. Kurt Godel, the greatest logician who...
by Curtis O Neill2 years ago
With the ever increasing overwhelming amount of Scientific knowledge that we humans now possess, I personally think it's only a matter of time before Religion is almost completley gone, forgotten if you will. What do I...
by usmanali817 years ago
These ISMs are mostly based on Darwin and his Theory of Evolution, directly or indirectly. Darwin himself is evident about his work to be obsolete. So why do they hide the truth from human kind, why they are misleading...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.