Basic biology gives the charactersistics of living things as:
Movement, Respiration, Death, Nutrition, Irritability, Growth, Excretion, Reproduction.

Now in the course of evolution, which of the above listed characteristics came first?
They couldn't have all come at one time as this will not be possible according to evolution (step by step).

Example:
Lets say organisms learnt to breathe first, so organisms couldnt excrete or do other stuff, just breath. Then they would have DIED before they could adapt with other characteristics.
But hey, they would have to evolve so they could acquire DEATH which is also a characteristic of living things, right?

So how did these characteristic form and in what sequence? Evolutionary puzzle.

Oya clap for yourself. . . e p'atewo fun!

OP, you seem to misunderstand basic biology; the characteristics of living things are gestalt, and not to be considered in part.

Tell me, when you were in your mother's womb, which did you do first?
Did you learn to breathe or excrete first?
Did you learn to absorb food or move first?

According to your "logic":

If you learnt to breathe first then you couldn't do the others so you would have died.

Karmanaut:
OP, you seem to misunderstand basic biology; the characteristics of living things are gestalt, and not to be considered in part.

Tell me, when you were in your mother's womb, which did you do first?
Did you learn to breathe or excrete first?
Did you learn to absorb food or move first?

According to your "logic":

If you learnt to breathe first then you couldn't do the others so you would have died.

You went too far in the equation to man. Man is already too complex. Man came from smaller organisms according to evolution. Probably algae to more complex stuff.
Ever wondered why are they not considered in part? The devil is in the details, think about it.
Looking back at the Big bang and if we begin from the basics of matter (protons, neutron and electrons) you will begin to see that one needed to come first before the other and not all at once.

Op you might be looking at it from the wrong angle. Take a look at the most simplest of organism you will find your answer.

Blakjewelry:
Op you might be looking at it from the wrong angle. Take a look at the most simplest of organism you will find your answer.

Just attempting to think outside the box.
How did the simplest of organisms come about? What did life evolve from or where did evolutiion begin?

There are several assumptions in Evolution theory: one is that Life arose from nonliving matter (i.e., spontaneous generation occurred).

NumberOne2:


Just attempting to think outside the box.
How did the simplest of organisms come about? What did life evolve from or where did evolutiion begin?

There are several assumptions in Evolution theory: one is that Life arose from nonliving matter (i.e., spontaneous generation occurred).

And God said,
Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind,
cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind;
and it was so.

Genesis 1:24

Is the earth living or non-living?


In December 2014, researchers at the Academy of Sciences in Prague fired a high-powered laser (simulating a meteorite impact) at samples of formamide, a liquid that would have been plentiful on the early earth. They found that all four RNA bases (adenine, guanine, cytosine and uracil), three of which are also in DNA, had been formed in the reaction
http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/origin.php

davien:

And God said,
Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind,
cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind;
and it was so.

Genesis 1:24

Is the earth living or non-living?

This thread is in the science section (not religion) for a reason. I want contributions to be purely scientific. This is not Science vs Religion as you have assumed, its Science vs Science.

davien:


In December 2014, researchers at the Academy of Sciences in Prague fired a high-powered laser (simulating a meteorite impact) at samples of formamide, a liquid that would have been plentiful on the early earth. They found that all four RNA bases (adenine, guanine, cytosine and uracil), three of which are also in DNA, had been formed in the reaction
http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/origin.php

Nice contribution.
I looked at the site and the reference material. Clearly the writer from http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org told only half the story. It pays to see the original material.

The writer (David H. Bailey) quoted [Barras2014] which leads to https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25471-spark-of-life-metabolism-appears-in-lab-without-cells (the original material). You will see that the experiment was "SEEDED".

There is one big problem, however. “For origins of life, it is important to understand where the source molecules come from,” Powner says. No one has yet shown that such substances could form spontaneously in the early oceans. - newscientist.com

I am a STRONG believer in science. Sadly, science makes certain assumptions like in evolution theory which science students take a FACT.

NumberOne2:
Basic biology gives the charactersistics of living things as:
Movement, Respiration, Death, Nutrition, Irritability, Growth, Excretion, Reproduction.

Now in the course of evolution, which of the above listed characteristics came first?
They couldn't have all come at one time as this will not be possible according to evolution (step by step).

Example:
Lets say organisms learnt to breathe first, so organisms couldnt excrete or do other stuff, just breath. Then they would have DIED before they could adapt with other characteristics.
But hey, they would have to evolve so they could acquire DEATH which is also a characteristic of living things, right?

So how did these characteristic form and in what sequence? Evolutionary puzzle.

The title of your post shows that you are ignorant of the philosophy of science. The proceeding premises and body of your post dispicts more deeper ignorant you are about evolution by natural selection. Furthermore, you still claimed to know pretty damn well about evolution to the extent of calling it a flaw. Am hopeful that any intelligent people don't debunk ideas he lacks deeper understanding of. Skepticism and seeking to know more comes first, before arriving to a conclusion, are features of an intelligent personal.

The problem that is bogging you from reaching out to scientific immense explanation and maximum certainty of the fact of evolution is your already presuppositions about god did it concept .

http://www.talkorigins.org/ may help you to answer your doubts.

menesheh:

The title of your post shows that you are ignorant of the philosophy of science. The proceeding premises and body of your post dispicts more deeper ignorant you are about evolution by natural selection. Furthermore, you still claimed to know pretty damn well about evolution to the extent of calling it a flaw.

Google def
flawed: blemished, damaged, or imperfect in some way.

menesheh:

Am hopeful that any intelligent people don't debunk ideas he lacks deeper understanding of. Skepticism and seeking to know more comes first, before arriving to a conclusion, are features of an intelligent personal.

The problem that is bogging you from reaching out to scientific immense explanation and maximum certainty of the fact of evolution is your already presuppositions about god did it concept .

http://www.talkorigins.org/ may help you to answer your doubts.

You are making the same assumption you accuse me of. You assume that since I question evolution, that means I claim God did it (this is NOT Religious section).
That science research (newscientist.com) involving RNA/DNA is an example of SCIENCE QUESTIONING EVOLUTION. Does that mean that those scientist claim that God did it? I would like to donate to and see more outcome(s) of research in that area of RNA/DNA synthesis. Not all of Science agrees with Evolution.

I looked at the site you posted. They are making the same assumption Evolution makes. They jumped to comparing higher species ignoring origins of life.

You should know that there are:
1) Atheists who believe in Evolution
2) Atheists who DO NOT believe in Evolution
3) Theists (Christains) who believe in Evolution. Infact they claim God used evolution to create the Earth.
4) Theists (Christians) who DO NOT believe in Evolution.

Stop assuming that because you are in catergory 1 above everyone else MUST BE in category 4. There are Christians who believe in science. You call me ignorant yet cannot answer the question. You end up make baseless assumptions like the one I clarified for you above.

PS: Its not always Religion vs Science, it can also be Religion + Science.

NumberOne2:

This thread is in the science section (not religion) for a reason. I want contributions to be purely scientific. This is not Science vs Religion as you have assumed, its Science vs Science.

Creationism and ID aren't science when metaphysical entities are involved unless the ID you vouch for is extraterrestial which we both know you don't...

Nice contribution.
I looked at the site and the reference material. Clearly the writer from http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org told only half the story. It pays to see the original material.

The writer (David H. Bailey) quoted [Barras2014] which leads to https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25471-spark-of-life-metabolism-appears-in-lab-without-cells (the original material). You will see that the experiment was "SEEDED".

ofcourse it was seeded dumb.as.s,how do you start an experiment without seeding with start materials?...

I am a STRONG believer in science. Sadly, science makes certain assumptions like in evolution theory which science students take a FACT.

congratulations mr believer in science READ BELOW

But Ralser disagrees. In his opinion, whether the reaction is catalysed by an enzyme or by a molecule in the Archean Ocean leads to the same result; “every chemical reaction is in principle reversible, whether an enzyme or a simple molecule is the catalyst"

BONUS : later that year by december,
In December 2014, researchers at the Academy of Sciences in Prague fired a high-powered laser (simulating a meteorite impact) at samples of formamide, a liquid that would have been plentiful on the early earth. They found that all four RNA bases (adenine, guanine, cytosine and uracil), three of which are also in DNA, had been formed in the reaction...

davien:

ofcourse it was seeded dumb.as.s,how do you start an experiment without seeding with start materials?...

Hmmm, insults are used when logic fails. Even the guys that did the experiment said that SEEDING it was a flaw.
I would have expected you to bring up something like VIRUSES which can be dead or alive depending on environment.

davien:

BONUS : later that year by december,
In December 2014, researchers at the Academy of Sciences in Prague fired a high-powered laser (simulating a meteorite impact) at samples of formamide, a liquid that would have been plentiful on the early earth. They found that all four RNA bases (adenine, guanine, cytosine and uracil), three of which are also in DNA, had been formed in the reaction...

Well, so as not to elongate this thread unneccesarily or act like "market women" by trading insults.
DNA and RNA are not living matter (based on defined characteristic in the OP). So I dont see how this answers the ORIGINAL question.
So the question remains, in evolving from non-living to living, which of the characteristics of living things came first?

Wow...the bosses are here. Lemme learn from them.
BTW, I have some questions about evolution too...but "am still a kid"

NumberOne2:

Google def
flawed: blemished, damaged, or imperfect in some way.

i made mention of your lack of the knowledge of philosophy of science. Science never maintain the idea of logical absolute and perfections in every of its theoretical researchers and conclusions especially on evolution. But as more evidence continue coming in, it will then be use to perfect such scientific fact the more.

You are making the same assumption you accuse me of. You assume that since I question evolution, that means I claim God did it (this is NOT Religious section).
That science research (newscientist.com) involving RNA/DNA is an example of SCIENCE QUESTIONING EVOLUTION. Does that mean that those scientist claim that God did it? I would like to donate to and see more outcome(s) of research in that area of RNA/DNA synthesis. Not all of Science agrees with Evolution.

Am actually biased by attacking from the angle of your belief. I personally know you as an anti-evolutionist and there is this constructive manner in questioning things which is devoid of total condemnation as is the case from your previous posts in religion section.

Basic biology gives the charactersistics of living things as:
Movement, Respiration, Death, Nutrition, Irritability, Growth, Excretion, Reproduction.

Now in the course of evolution, which of the above listed characteristics came first?
They couldn't have all come at one time as this will not be possible according to evolution (step by step).

Are for your argument above excerpted from your previous post, it is not in anyway evolutionary puzzle. Asking for the process that came first doesn't make sense since bacterias today still do most of those things you mentioned, and other things is as a result of slow changes that perfect itself during the evolutionary process.

menesheh:

Am actually biased by attacking from the angle of your belief. I personally know you as an anti-evolutionist and there is this constructive manner in questioning things which is devoid of total condemnation as is the case from your previous posts in religion section.

You see, problems arises when Atheists pin evolution against Theists (creationist) to disprove the later.
This is what you are trying to do. Like I said, this is NOT the religious section.
However, logically you cannot debunk a so called false claim (existence of God) with another false claim (Evolution). That line of argument is flawed in itself but like I have said, that is not the purpose of this thread.

menesheh:

i made mention of your lack of the knowledge of philosophy of science. Science never maintain the idea of logical absolute and perfections in every of its theoretical researchers and conclusions especially on evolution. But as more evidence continue coming in, it will then be use to perfect such scientific fact the more.
A flaw out of many facts can't account for

I'm a glad you agree evolution theory is a work in progress not a FACT. This is the best answer on this thread so far. Now we can wait for more research and keep asking questions. Afterall, research is a form of "question asking".
One of the basic assumptions of evolution (Spontaneous generation) is now an OBSOLETE theory. Shouldn't that ring a bell?

NumberOne2:


You see, problems arises when Atheists pin evolution against Theists (creationist) to disprove the later.
This is what you are trying to do. Like I said, this is NOT the religious section.
However, logically you cannot debunk a so called false claim (existence of God) with another false claim (Evolution). That line of argument is flawed in itself but like I have said, that is not the purpose of this thread.

BOLDED
shorting my mouth up until we meet there.

I'm a glad you agree evolution theory is a work in progress not a FACT. This is the best answer on this thread so far. Now we can wait for more research and keep asking questions. Afterall, research is a form of "question asking".
One of the basic assumptions of evolution (Spontaneous generation) is now an OBSOLETE theory. Shouldn't that ring a bell?

misquoting me is not gonna take you anywhere. my comment :

But as more evidence continue coming in, it will then be use to perfect such scientific fact the more

take this for an instance

NumberOne2 went to Burkina Faso last year. there are 200 pieces of evidence pointing to the fact that NumberOne2 actually went to Burkina Faso. it is now a fact that NumberOne2 have been Burkina Faso. if there is extra one or more evidence pointing to the fact, it still remain the fact that Numberone2 have been to Burkina Faso. now evidence 200+ (201 or more evidence)

now here you are, how many persons did Number0ne2 shook-hand with in the cause of his stay in Burkina Faso for a week? how many steps did Numberone2 march to reach to the door of the airport taxi?
those question doesn't matter as far as there are enough evidence pointing to the fact that Numberone2's has actually been to Burkina Faso.

NumberOne2:

Hmmm, insults are used when logic fails. Even the guys that did the experiment said that SEEDING it was a flaw.
I would have expected you to bring up something like VIRUSES which can be dead or alive depending on environment.

Or insults are used to point out illogic and st.upidity...please state where "word for word" anyone said seeding with start materials is a flaw....

Well, so as not to elongate this thread unneccesarily or act like "market women" by trading insults.
DNA and RNA are not living matter (based on defined characteristic in the OP). So I dont see how this answers the ORIGINAL question.
So the question remains, in evolving from non-living to living, which of the characteristics of living things came first?

DNA and RNA are the framework....you can't have a building without a foundation...the amazing thing is that it(the components) can even be demonstrated to appear naturally and with no knowledge whatsoever as to the complete process(thus fulfilling certain hypothesis of where the source material came from)...and the first characteristic is a non-sequitor as many have pointed out to you the illogic of that statement e.g "before you where born what came first,eating,breathing,etc"

You mean abiogenesis is flawed. Not evolution.

Teempakguy:
You mean abiogenesis is flawed. Not evolution.

Stay outta this man...there are Giants here

RobinHez:

Stay outta this man...there are Giants here

biological giants you mean. If the topic were to slightly shift to physics. I would rule this thread.

Teempakguy:
biological giants you mean. If the topic were to slightly shift to physics. I would rule this thread.

Park well jhor

But seriously...I never knew such of these guys existed o. See how they're attacking each other like pros

Maybe there are a lot of hidden scientists on NL afterall

RobinHez:

Park well jhor

But seriously...I never knew such of these guys existed o. See how they're attacking each other like pros

Maybe there are a lot of hidden scientists on NL afterall

You know, I discovered something recently. People love to comment on controversial threads. You know, threads on which they can pick sides and try to express their views.

However, in the science section, the threads there just give information. Nothing to add or subtract. So, people just read and live. But if the threads were to have arguments, people would FLOCK in. Hence, I am currently looking for a topic in science which we can argue over. Instead of one that has been proved and set in stone.

You should too abeg.

Teempakguy:


You know, I discovered something recently. People love to comment on controversial threads. You know, threads on which they can pick sides and try to express their views.

However, in the science section, the threads there just give information. Nothing to add or subtract. So, people just read and live. But if the threads were to have arguments, people would FLOCK in. Hence, I am currently looking for a topic in science which we can argue over. Instead of one that has been proved and set in stone.

You should too abeg.

Hmmm...that sounds like a great Idea, I'll work on that.

Reminds me of this thread https://www.nairaland.com/2346630/what-two-moons

That was where I discovered johny and the rest gang

Teempakguy:
You mean abiogenesis is flawed. Not evolution.

Thanks for bringing up Abiogenesis. Which led me to Protocell.
I learnt a lot from Abiogenesis and it has taken me to more material I didn't look at before now.
My question is similar to questioning the formation of a Protocell and its functions. Which is a LOGICAL question.

A central question in evolution is how simple protocells first arose and how they could differ in reproductive output, thus enabling the accumulation of novel biological emergences over time, i.e. biological evolution.
Although a functional protocell has not yet been achieved in a laboratory setting, the goal to understand the process appears well within reach. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocell

As you can all see (davien and menesheh), my question was a not ignorant or based on religious preferences. It is a genuine question being asked within the scientific community. Evolution ASSUMES the existence of the Protocell (Abiogenesis), yet doesn't tell us how it came about.

[quote author=davien][/quote]
Please we should learn to present our argument without insult.
@op the link davien shared provides a lot information though their is still alot to do.
Why I mentioned the simplest of organism is because they carry out almost all the aforementioned characteristics in similar manner except dying.

Blakjewelry:
Why I mentioned the simplest of organism is because they carry out almost all the aforementioned characteristics in similar manner except dying.

^^^How, simple organisms die or am I missing something.

I purposely started this thread outside the religious section so as to remove the bias of theist vs atheists. Finally, I see why this thread almost took a religious tone though in the Science section.

The reality is that abiogenesis stands alongside evolutionary theory as a fundamental plank of atheism and will remain there. The two are intimately linked and stand or fall together. It is time for the naturalist to forthrightly admit that his religious belief in evolution is based on a blind acceptance of an unscientific pheonomenon. http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=12&article=1631

PS: The aim of this thread is not to debunk Atheism, its just to question Evolution afterall, there are Atheists who do not agree with Evolution

NumberOne2:

Thanks for bringing up Abiogenesis. Which led me to Protocell.
I learnt a lot from Abiogenesis and it has taken me to more material I didn't look at before now.
My question is similar to questioning the formation of a Protocell and its functions. Which is a LOGICAL question.


As you can all see (davien and menesheh), my question was a not ignorant or based on religious preferences. It is a genuine question being asked within the scientific community. Evolution ASSUMES the existence of the Protocell (Abiogenesis), yet doesn't tell us how it came about.

evolution is not that general. It assume the existence of the protocell in order to function. However, explaining the origin of the protocell will be left for ANOTHER theory.
It is not compulsory for a single theory to explain all of life.

NumberOne2:

^^^How, simple organisms die or am I missing something.

Why I said except death is because death mean different thing to different organism. An example is a virus, an amoeba and even a more complex organism like jellyfish, they don't die like organism barring external influence.
You will also observed that their mod of energy exchange follow similar partway.

op the problem here is that the time span is so long, in millions of years... our mind cant grasp this... these creatures took a long time to get to their present state.. and creatures are still evolving today ... we can never really achieve great understanding of evolution. we can only propound theory to explain observable phenomena...

Teempakguy:
evolution is not that general. It assume the existence of the protocell in order to function. However, explaining the origin of the protocell will be left for ANOTHER theory.
It is not compulsory for a single theory to explain all of life.

Refering to the BOLDED above. Evolutionist MUST fix this foundation. I never saw a man who built a house on a faulty foundation and is expecting someone else to come fix it for him.

The foundation of evolution is that life already exists. How did life come about? This is my question. Evolution is built on a faulty foundation which should be questioned.

hiroz:
op the problem here is that the time span is so long, in millions of years... our mind cant grasp this... these creatures took a long time to get to their present state.. and creatures are still evolving today ... we can never really achieve great understanding of evolution. we can only propound theory to explain observable phenomena...

The ONLY evolution seen today is MICRO. There is no record of MACRO evolution to form new KINDS of animals or plants. Even at that, evolution is built on a FAULTY foundation. Either this foundation is strenghtened by more evidence or it will soon fall.

NumberOne2:


Refering to the BOLDED above. Evolutionist MUST fix this foundation. I never saw a man who built a house on a faulty foundation and is expecting someone else to come fix it for him.

Why must it be "evolutionists" that fix it?
When Newton started wondering on gravity, did he have to explain how the apple in the tree came about? Or do you reject the theory of gravitation because Newton doesn't explain how the apple came about?

The foundation of evolution is that life already exists.

Bingo! If you know this already, why do you ask the next question?

How did life come about? This is my question. Evolution is built on a faulty foundation which should be questioned.

How life came about is no business of evolution; like how the apple is no business of gravitation. Like Teempakguy said above it's not for evolution to explain, but for another theory.

The ONLY evolution seen today is MICRO.

Obviously macroevolution takes longer to occur(think millions of years).

There is no record of MACRO evolution to form new KINDS of animals or plants.

Really? The paleontology proofs, biochemical proofs, embryological proofs, etc aren't good enough for you? Or do you want to be present as it occurs?

Even at that, evolution is built on a FAULTY foundation. Either this foundation is strenghtened by more evidence or it will soon fall.

What foundation is that? That there is life?
Because that's the foundation of evolution according to you, or re you trying to say life doesn't exist?

Karmanaut:
Why must it be "evolutionists" that fix it?
When Newton started wondering on gravity, did he have to explain how the apple in the tree came about? Or do you reject the theory of gravitation because Newton doesn't explain how the apple came about?
Bingo! If you know this already, why do you ask the next question? How life came about is no business of evolution; like how the apple is no business of gravitation. Like Teempakguy said above it's not for evolution to explain, but for another theory.


Obviously macroevolution takes longer to occur(think millions of years). Really? The paleontology proofs, biochemical proofs, embryological proofs, etc aren't good enough for you? Or do you want to be present as it occurs?
What foundation is that? That there is life?
Because that's the foundation of evolution according to you, or re you trying to say life doesn't exist?

You analogy is flawed (refering to the BOLDED).
Correction, Evolution is NOT life. Evolution is based on LIFE.

Gravity doesn't only work with Apples. He may as well have pushed a brick off the table edge.
Evolution ONLY works with life. We need to know where life came from. We know the source of Gravity but not the source of Evolution, why? Is that not a valid question.
Well scientist are working on it so that shows its a valid question but till then... the flaw remains.