Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

spendi, I'm not shaken up that easily, but your summary only results in big <smiles>. I'm gonna let the other thread participants respond to your list, because I know they can put to rest your idea of what constitutes the "important stuff of life."

suspendis rantings notwithstanding, the incredulity shouted out by RL, "where are the non DNA life -forms" is a hoot. Ya cant have it multiple ways RL, and besides Miller and Futuyama have postulated life forms with central ligands that are iron, silica, sulfur or phsophorus based. Just because we dont see lots of them on this planet (with the exception of sulfur ligand extremophiles whoese sructures are "sort of" mercaptan based "DNA's' we may be looking for a long time. But I figure that one example is a start .

Ros, I love it when RL only posts certain chunks of a paper and hopes that hell get away with murder of logic.

Of course , Im still waiting for a decent answer re biogeography and Creation (hopefully evidence driven).

Im sure RL will try to dodge off by posing some Creationist dodge in orser that we may be diverted

The whole idea of a "closed surface" and of the "firm boundaries" of the individual becomes the more nebulous the deeper we descend in the evolutional scale towards the primitive cell colonies, just as the idea of discrete bits of matter dissolves when we approach the atomic level.

.....crushed the tissues of sponges and hydroids, sifted the cells through bolting cloth, and then observed the behaviour in water. At first independently suspended, they aggregated by settling and centrifuging.

From flat sheets they then rounded up spherically, began to differentiate, and ended up as individuals with characteristic mouth, tentacles, and so forth.

I will be glad to answer any specifics you propose. So tell us, what critter lives in a place that 'only evolution can explain' ?

What nonsense. Why do you think I posted a link to the entire 8 page article and a summary if you think I was trying to hide the author's conclusion?

He proposes a dead end, a self generating 'proto-cell' with NO means of replication.When the first member of a 'new species' is born, what will he breed with? Or if he can still breed with the 'old species' then he is not a 'new species', is he?

If this can replicate itself, then it is not what Shapiro was describing, is it?

mY SPECIFIC QUESTION Was , WHAT IS IT ABOUT BIOGEOGRAPHY THAT crEATIONISM EXPLAINS OR EVIDENCES? yOU ARE AVOIDING THE QUESTION totally

farmerman wrote:

mY SPECIFIC QUESTION Was , WHAT IS IT ABOUT BIOGEOGRAPHY THAT crEATIONISM EXPLAINS OR EVIDENCES? yOU ARE AVOIDING THE QUESTION totally

This is not a specific question.

It is a vague 'so, can you prove a negative?' kind of a question.

If you think there is some species that lives in a place that only evolution can explain, then say so.

Otherwise quit throwing out generalities and expecting an encyclopedic response.

I have no interest in cataloguing every species for your pleasure and explaining that each of them lives there because it is there that they find food and shelter.

farmerman wrote:

mY SPECIFIC QUESTION Was , WHAT IS IT ABOUT BIOGEOGRAPHY THAT crEATIONISM EXPLAINS OR EVIDENCES? yOU ARE AVOIDING THE QUESTION totally

This is not a specific question.

It is a vague 'so, can you prove a negative?' kind of a question.

If you think there is some species that lives in a place that only evolution can explain, then say so.

Otherwise quit throwing out generalities and expecting an encyclopedic response.

I have no interest in cataloguing every species for your pleasure and explaining that each of them lives there because it is there that they find food and shelter.

farmerman wrote:

mY SPECIFIC QUESTION Was , WHAT IS IT ABOUT BIOGEOGRAPHY THAT crEATIONISM EXPLAINS OR EVIDENCES? yOU ARE AVOIDING THE QUESTION totally

This is not a specific question.

It is a vague 'so, can you prove a negative?' kind of a question.

If you think there is some species that lives in a place that only evolution can explain, then say so.

Otherwise quit throwing out generalities and expecting an encyclopedic response.

I have no interest in cataloguing every species for your pleasure and explaining that each of them lives there because it is there that they find food and shelter.

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

Interesting article.

for full story see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanId=sa003&articleId=B7AABF35-E7F2-99DF-309B8CEF02B5C4D7

Thanks RL, it was a good article.

It ended with this:

Quote:

If the general small-molecule paradigm were confirmed, then our expectations of the place of life in the universe would change. A highly implausible start for life, as in the RNA-first scenario, implies a universe in which we are alone. In the words of the late Jacques Monod, "The universe was not pregnant with life nor the biosphere with man. Our number came up in the Monte Carlo game." The small-molecule alternative, however, is in harmony with the views of biologist Stuart Kauffman: "If this is all true, life is vastly more probable than we have supposed. Not only are we at home in the universe, but we are far more likely to share it with unknown companions."

If life was really THAT probable, then we should see LOTS of examples of different kinds of life, most (all but 1) of them without[/i][/u] DNA.

The bustle was invented by Victorian ladies for gentlemen returning from the heart of darkness in order to give them an impression relating to what they had become habituated to on their colonial missions.

Charles Frederick Worth
born Oct. 13, 1825, Bourne, Lincolnshire, Eng.
died March 10, 1895, Paris, France

British-born French fashion designer.

In 1845 he left England, where he had been a bookkeeper, and worked in a Paris dress accessories shop. In 1858 he opened his own ladies' tailor shop and soon gained the patronage of the empress Eugénie. He was a pioneer of the "fashion show" (the preparation and showing of a collection), the first man to become prominent in the field of fashion, and the first designer to create dresses intended to be copied and distributed throughout the world. He became the dictator of Paris fashion and was especially noted for his elegant Second Empire gowns. He invented the bustle, which became standard in women's fashion in the 1870s and '80s.

The bustle was invented by Victorian ladies for gentlemen returning from the heart of darkness in order to give them an impression relating to what they had become habituated to on their colonial missions.

ros,

Perhaps you miss Shapiro's point.

He is saying there WERE no replicators in early life.

Just small molecules reacting in a protective bubble.