Gabfly gave an erudite and more thorough explanation. His patience in doing so and you, admitting you were wrong, should perhaps be recognized too. For one thing, wouldn't you think it an obvious evolutionary divergence from the other great apes if nothing else? There is overwhelmingly a tremendous advantage in being able to get food at ground level and so, in simplistic evolutionary terms anyway, that was simply going to happen within tree living primates that initially ran there for safety, wasn't it? Adaptation to the environment, step by step over generations of evolution into distinct species, upright, moving faster on the ground, adapting further abilities to out run all other ground species over long distances. Not so much losing an ability as you suggest, but rather gaining beneficial ones which result in survival by natural selection.
The building blocks of life are observed emerging from inorganic matter. If the building blocks are considered to be life itself, then your suggestion is doomed. If the building blocks of life are themselves considered not life, the building blocks of life obviously become life which is again life from 'non life', so your argument is doomed. Whether that's what did actually happen or whether a combination of different things, is a different matter. Or of course you can ignore the observations you say you require and just plumb straight for the unobserved magic God beasty of the skies approach. Which strangely it seems you prefer to favor.
You prove your STUpidity with almost every post you make. It's not about proving gravity exists. It's about finding theories that account for all observations and don't conflict. For example, current theories don't explain the flyby anomaly and it's well known that general relativity is incompatible with quantum mechanics. Finally, theories and laws are not the same thing -- especially how dimwits like you use the terms. Look into it if it's still possible for you to learn.
How odd. Nobody bothered to address Darwins Finches, nor explain away the comparative immutability of some species via their genes, nor even address the fact that women are provably developing narrower hips, even over a short space of time. Darwin explained, if not proved, that to-sexual selection. Seriously-how many of you actually read all of Darwin's work?
so what are you saying darwin stands for. if you point is that things change over time, not many will disagree with you. if you are saying life evolved from non life... you are outside science.
Great video.... full of straw man arguments... but do you see how your video concedes my point in the first minute. The point I have been making to you and stu about evolution and the origin of life. Atheists on ET have been acting like they know life evolved by random chance. Now your video concedes the that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. Which is not a surprise because we are still looking for a pathway from life to non life according to the man whose research is quoted in the video. In 2009, he stated we are still looking for a pathway from life to non life. I am glad you are getting on board with real science. Finally the argument about the mud is just so full of goo. For years we have been hearing about the origin of life out of the primordial goo. Even Star Trek TNG had a final episode about it. To act like that is a creationist straw man is very insincere and makes that authors of those videos untrustworthy.
I note the 2nd video actually talks about primordial goo. so what is up the the b.s. in the first video...
LOL That's how a belief system is built. They start off in grammar school and tell you "the teacher is smarter so she must be right" and they continue on with it... oh, and, don't forget to never question the teacher, you won't get a good grade!!
Jem, it's like information that you don't like bounces right off you. Zero absorption. You are truly information proof.