What many people don't know is that life existed as single-celled organisms for 2.5 billion years before evolving into multicellular types. The whole thing is quite amazing.......and requires "God" in no part of it. For instance..."Eukaryotic cells evolved when one simple cell engulfed another, and the two lived together, more or less amicably â an example of "endosymbiosis". The engulfed bacteria eventually become mitochondria, which provide eukaryotic cells with energy." http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17453-timeline-the-evolution-of-life.html
also from the time line in your article. "This is our current "best guess" for the beginning of life on Earth. It is distinctly possible that this date will change as more evidence comes to light. The first life may have developed in undersea alkaline vents, and was probably based on RNA rather than DNA." translation... at the moment we have no idea how or if life evolved from non life here on earth.
translation... actually there is more than an idea of how life can arise from non life here on earth.
Human evolution is still Darwinian. It is the outcome (survival of the fittest) that appears to be altered...but it really isn't. Take the case of males. Its the definition of "fitness" that is different. Fitness now means affable, amicable and risk averse in human civilization and males who exhibit those traits are more likely to procreate. Fitness no longer means those best suited physically to hunt, gather and protect as those traits no longer afford offspring the best chance of survival. The basic theory of Darwinian evolution is quite intact. I think the claims that Darwin is wrong are absurd. Aside from Einstein, Darwin's theory is the most powerful idea in the history of science. It is/was a fundamental breakthrough in understanding life on Earth. My view on this has changed over time. I regarded human evolution as non-Darwinian for awhile but upon further reflection it seems to me that the theory holds up quite well imho.
translation... stu is just trolling with bullshit. ok stu... show us the science showing life evolved from non life here in earth by random chance in the harsh conditions and very limited time it had.
translation... you must enjoy being the idiot. It's a well known fact inorganic non-life chemical compounds, produce the basic molecular level organic amino acids on which all life works. so this nonsense... is fundamentally wrong.
you are right... your comments are nonsense. your previous comment was just troll nonsense and you still have no proof life evolved from non life by random chance. and now your current quote is from another page in the troll book "creating a useless distraction or distinction". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_compound Modern classification Even though vitalism has been discredited, the distinction between "organic" and "inorganic" compounds has been retained through the present. The modern meaning of "organic compound" is any one of them that contains a significant amount of carbon - even though many of the "organic compounds" known today have no connection whatsoever with any substance found in living organisms. There is no "official" definition of an organic compound. Some textbooks define an organic compound as one containing one or more C-H bonds; others include C-C bonds in the definition. Others state that if a molecule contains carbon―it is organic.[2] Even the broader definition of "carbon-containing molecules" requires the exclusion of carbon-containing alloys (including steel), a relatively small number of carbon-containing compounds such as metal carbonates and carbonyls, simple oxides of carbon and cyanides, as well as the allotropes of carbon and simple carbon halides and sulfides, which are usually considered to be inorganic. The "C-H" definition excludes compounds that are historically and practically considered to be organic. Neither urea nor oxalic acid is organic by this definition, yet they were two key compounds in the vitalism debate. The IUPAC Blue Book on organic nomenclature specifically mentions urea[3] and oxalic acid.[4] Other compounds lacking C-H bonds that are also traditionally considered to be organic include benzenehexol, mesoxalic acid, and carbon tetrachloride. Mellitic acid, which contains no C-H bonds, is considered to be a possible organic substance in Martian soil. All do, however, contain C-C bonds.[5] The "C-H bond-only" rule also leads to somewhat arbitrary divisions in sets of carbon-fluorine compounds, as, for example, Teflon is considered by this rule "inorganic" but Tefzel organic. Likewise, many Halons are considered inorganic, whereas the rest are considered organic. For these and other reasons, most sources consider C-H compounds to be only a subset of "organic" compounds. In summary, most carbon-containing compounds are organic, and most compounds with a C-H bond are organic. Not all organic compounds necessarily contain C-H bonds (e.g., urea).
I know.... and you are very weird. Especially about this stuff. That much is also well known. I said inorganic non-life. As in - non living material. As in - having non of life's charcteristics. Funny how you invariably display confusion with a post in which you've managed to cut & paste something basically supporting what I was saying. All of life relies on amino acids. The organic molecules that define life itself. Without them there is not life. It is a known fact that inorganic non life, non living inorganic materials, give rise to life giving organic amino acids. Protein developing living organisms. How exactly they synthesize is the question in research. So there is the discipline of science, step by step putting together an enormous biochemical jigsaw, showing how non organic non life matter in the form of reacting chemicals, make amino acids, make proteins, make life. Then there is you... with some crazed creationist imaginings for a mythical sky beastie, magic dust, a sneeze, then poof, life. Weird and a bit fkd up too.
Huge difference Lucrum. I'm puzzled that you are an apologist for the Christian argument when you do not have any belief in their myth. Is it because most Christians are ABO like yourself?