Fantasy or Fact did some life forms evolve from Protobionts?

Fantasy or Fact did some life forms evolve from Protobionts? Topic: Fantasy or Fact did some life forms evolve from Protobionts?
June 19, 2019 / By Violet
Question: To zookid..- What forms your foundation to support it being called a "Fact" ? To metzkeb - Finally we agree on a common perspective, that you should look elsewhere, because I have little tolerance for a self-serving puerile atheist, quizzing under the false premise of seeking knowledge. Allow me to easily deconstruct your pointless assertions: You say- “Your failure to realize that changes in the genetic structure of bacteria is an example of evolution and your failure to understand certain concepts related to evolution and population genetics (like scoffing at the term 'genetic drift')” My answer - Again this is a common “skip-and-jump” game played by evolutionist. Of the many cases of antibiotic resistance studied, none have involved the production of new functionally complex information, such as a new enzyme. This would be real evolution, but such has not been found. Sometimes bacteria have acquired resistance genes from other species via viruses or by direct transfer through tiny tubes, but this is not the addition of new (Continue below) To metzkeb - (continue from above) - of new information to the biosphere as a whole. Bacteria only produce bacteria ‘after their kind’, not a different type of creature. You say – “you have become blinded by your beliefs and will not entertain the possibility that there is more to understanding the world around you than can be learned in a book that was written thousands of years ago”. My Answer – I’ll acknowledge your ignorance & educate you: 2 Corinthians Chapter 4 verse 4 “Among the god (Satan) of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers” So from my point of view it’s not me but you that’s blinded by the evolutionary dogma promoted by Satan! You say - relying upon biased bashing of evolutionary theory, quotes taken out of context, and hypotheses formulated by uncreditable researchers. My Answer – Your statement is atheist “code-speak meaning” “Please don’t share “FACTUAL” testimonies from “CREDITBLE” sources because I’ll keep resorting to the (continue below) To metzkeb (Cont from above) - “Taken out of context” excuse to help soothe the obvious pain. You say - Oh, and to answer your question....based on current scientific evidence, FACT! My answer – Protobionts’s nucleic acid is comprised of RNA, therefore BEFORE the arrival of protobionts RNA from amino acid needed to first evolve. However a report issued after the "Astrobiology Workshop" held September 9-11, 1996 at Ames Research Center, California, we reads: It has been postulated that there was a time in protobiological evolution when RNA played a dual role as both genetic material and a catalytic molecule ("the RNA world"). However, this appealing concept encounters significant difficulties. RNA is chemically fragile and difficult to synthesize abiotically. The known range of its catalytic activities is rather narrow, and the origin of an RNA synthetic apparatus is unclear. (continue below) To metzkeb (Contiune from above) - But according to Leslie Orgel, uncomtaminated strands of RNA of "any size" are unlikely to form in nature. More precisely, "…the direct synthesis of nucleotides from prebiotic precursors in reasonable yield and unaccompanied by larger amounts of unrelated molecules could not be achieved by presently known chemical reactions." So the answer to my question is FANTASY..PURE AND UNADULTERATED FICTION BASED
Advertisement
Best Answer

Best Answers: Fantasy or Fact did some life forms evolve from Protobionts?

Shania Shania | 10 days ago
Go to wikipedia that site is the land of answers sure it might be in a long text but it'll be quick to summarize type in the search on wikipedia.com "Protobionts"
👍 128 | 👎 10
Did you like the answer? Fantasy or Fact did some life forms evolve from Protobionts? Share with your friends
Shania Originally Answered: How can anyone deny that a fact has credible evidence supporting it, meaning that gods are not 'fact'?
You make some great points - and it's one of the reasons I try never to assert that God is "absolutely" real - I have faith, but at the same time, I recognize that had I been born in India or Japan, my concept of God likely be radically different. The bigger question - why have you gone "private" - you have a knack for ferreting out interesting questions, and almost always provide thought provoking answers, and I am sad that I can no longer follow you. Hopefully, you can change your mind. Kind regards

Opaline Opaline
Well - at the moment, the answer would have to be "neither": it is an hypothesis. There are various hypotheses about whether (and how) abiogenesis occurred - but the details and feasibility of these are hotly debated. Similarly, there are those who suggest that life on earth came from elsewhere ("Panspermia"). This is one way of getting around the contention that there simply hasn't been enough time on earth for life to have complexified the way it manifestly has. Of course, it simply shunts the problem elsewhere - for life must have arisen *somewhere*. And there are many studies and models showing that is *is* quite possible for life to have diversified in the ~4 billion years it has existed on earth. Finally (of course), there is the idea that life was conjured into existance on earth by a supernatural agency. This also gets around the issue of time by "short-circuiting" some of the more difficult early steps required to go from acellular "proto-life" to bacterial life. Now - the first of these ideas is a genuine scientific hypothesis (if a hotly-debated and highly contentious one). The second is less scientific, as it posits an extra variable (life elsewhere in the universe) that must be taken into account; thereby violating the principle of parsimony. And the last idea - though perfectly possible - is manifestly *not* scientific, as it resorts to supernatural powers for the creation of life (and the supernatural cannot be examined by science).
👍 40 | 👎 2

Mahala Mahala
Speculation. We have no direct evidence that protobionts ever existed, nor that prokaryotes evolved from them. We do not have fossils of protobionts -- none that we recognize as such, anyway. Another thing that's fun to speculate about is the Oxygen Catastrophe. Were there other kinds of life that crashed and burned (so to speak) when the photosynthesizers (that were our kind of life) dumped oxygen into the atmosphere?
👍 31 | 👎 -6

Keturah Keturah
In responding to your questions over the past few weeks, I had hoped to involve myself in a intellectual conversation involving scientific evidence on both sides of the agrument. Alas, this seems to be a futile effort on my part. Your last question made me realize that you do not know enough about evolution to be debating its merits. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;... Your failure to realize that changes in the genetic structure of bacteria is an example of evolution and your failure to understand certain concepts related to evolution and population genetics (like scoffing at the term 'genetic drift') has lead me to the conclusion that intellectual debate is not your strong point, but rather you have become blinded by your beliefs and will not entertain the possibility that there is more to understanding the world around you than can be learned in a book that was written thousands of years ago. Before you attempt to zealously whack me with your Bible, understand that my beliefs come from an open-minded view of both scientific and spiritual knowledge. My attempts at scientific debate with you have fallen short as you have yet to provide scientific evidence of creationism/intelligent design, instead relying upon biased bashing of evolutionary theory, quotes taken out of context, and hypotheses formulated by uncreditable researchers. This lack of stimulating debate has lead me to the realization that I must turn my efforts to other askers in an attempt to find intellect. Oh, and to answer your question....based on current scientific evidence, FACT!
👍 22 | 👎 -14

Keturah Originally Answered: Where, When did the Kitchen Evolve? Your daily dose, Food for Thought!?
At various times throughout the history of humankind, people have registered their opposition to the cruel way in which animals are oppressed, and many have turned to a vegetarian way of life. For both ethical and economic reasons, countless millions of people throughout the world live on a vegetarian diet. But the truth is more complicated than that. Certainly there were eras in human history when meat was a staple – during the Ice Age, for example, the ground was so cold and hard that vegetation was difficult to find, so that Neanderthal was forced to hunt down meat to fill his grumbling tummy. But the very earliest humans were more gatherer than hunter and actually scavenged the remains of animals that were killed by other predators, essentially gleaning from others’ roadkill. Studies by anthropologists indicate that early man was far more interested in feasting on the nutrient-rich bone marrow of found animals rather than on their flesh, using tools to cut away the meat not to eat it, but to remove it from the desired bones. No, early man’s diet consisted of what he could find growing where he lived – vegetables, fruits, nuts and seeds. By combining those, and relying primarily on a diet of calcium-rich wild greens, he was able to get all of the vitamins, iron, protein, fats and carbohydrates that he needed. Animals had yet to be domesticated, so the only meat our ancestors had to eat was either what they chased down or found lying about – gathering nuts and seeds was simply more productive than counting on being able to catch and cook an animal by supper time. Eventually, man developed agriculture, raising vegetables and grains, and domesticating animals for meat and dairy. But before that time, some 10,000 years ago, man relied heavily on that which he could pluck from trees, bushes and the ground, and his diet was about 90 percent plant food. So toss out the idea that man is at heart a carnivore – we are, in fact, omnivores, able to eat meat but certainly nor required to by our biology or our history. A number of religions and beliefs have lent support to vegetarianism. Brahminism, Buddhism, Jainism and Zoroastrianism all advocated an abstention from flesh foods. More recently, the Seventh Day Adventists and The Order of the Cross have advocated a vegetarian diet and many Hindus and some Roman Catholic groups adhere to a vegetarian diet. Some early writers express their opposition to meat eating in no uncertain terms. Plutarch stated: "I am astonished to think what appetite first induced man to taste of a dead carcass or what motive could suggest the notion of nourishing himself with the flesh of animals which he saw, just before, bleating, bellowing, walking, and looking about them." Ovid, in the fifteenth book of his "Metamorphoses", puts into the mouth of Medea a forcible disquisition upon the Golden Age: "Blest is the produce of the trees and in the herbs which the earth brings forth, and the human mouth was not polluted with blood." Seneca, the greatest of the Stoics wrote: "To abstain from the flesh of animals is to foster and to encourage innocence." In a later statement he claimed: "I resolved to abstain from flesh meat, and at the end of a year the habit of abstinence was not only easy but delightful." Pythagoras enjoined the abstention from the flesh of animals and his followers formed a vegetarian community. Other famous early vegetarians were Diogenes, Plato, Plotinus and Socrates. Vegetarianism was not uncommon among early Christians, and some monastic orders follow a vegetarian diet to this day. Famous writers such as Voltaire, Paley, Pope, Shelley, Bentham and Lamartine urged the desirability of a humane diet. Alexander Pope expressed the opinion that: "Nothing can be more shocking and horrid than one of our kitchens sprinkled with blood and abounding with the cries of expiring victims or with the limbs of dead animals scattered or hung up here and there." Leonardo da Vinci, Benjamin Franklin, Albert Einstein, and George Bernard Shaw were also vegetarians. When you think of early man, odds are that the first image that pops into your mind is that of spear-carrying Neanderthal dragging a large, dead animal home to his cave for dinner. We’ve long held onto the erroneous notion that our ancestors were mighty warriors, taking down gigantic beasts with their bows, arrows and flint knives, and tearing into meat as their primary source of nourishment.
Advertisement

If you have your own answer to the question Fantasy or Fact did some life forms evolve from Protobionts?, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.