As far as I understand in the beginning which we do not know or understand, there were particles. These coalesced into atoms starting with Hydrogen. Hydrogen coalesced into Helium and so on to all the atoms known to us.
There was another parallel and/or sequential process by which atoms coalesced into molecules.
Molecules gave rise to organic molecules starting with methane to urea and so on.
This is on the material side of things.
Then there are memes which evolved in identical fashion in the world of ideas. A meme is a particle of idea or culture or system of behavior passed from one individual to another by imitation or other non-genetic means. Memes also coalesce to form more complex ideas of culture and behavior.
Thus evolution takes place both in the materialistic world as well as in the ideological world and this leads to the formation of more complex materials and ideas.
Now Darwin's theory of evolution applies only to forms of life though there is no cut-off point where non-living molecules end or living molecules begin.
Evolution is a turbid area or process where the more we discover the more remains to be discovered. In science things clear up only to become more turbid and with each loose end tied up more loose ends appear; with each knot disentangled more knots appear. Consequently in science nothing is sure until proven false and that is called falsifiability which is the acid test as far as science is concerned.
On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 10:23, DevinderSingh Gulati devindersingh.gulati2@gmail.com [TheBecoming] <TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Bravo Surashji. Most cogent reply.On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 10:06 AM Bhakti Niskama Shanta suresh_bbsr2000@yahoo.com [TheBecoming] <TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com> wrote:You seems to be either impatient or don't have intelligence to understand things. Our video presentation has given the recent reference about how scientists are perplexed about place of life's origin and thus they are fighting with each other about it. They are far from explaining the mechanism for origin of life.
You have correctly told "The chemical evolution hypothesis in the present context is hypothesis that molecules that can copy themselves (reproduced) evolved from even smaller molecules like methane, carbon dioxide , inorganic phosphates etc., as these are/were abundantly found in the early earth when life appeared some 3.77 billion years ago." but have you ever thought about the stupidity of this proposal by scientists?If someone tells you that iron, plastic and other materials became complex by the process of evolution over time and thus airplane manifested, then will you believe it? A living cell is even much more exceptionally complex system than an artifact like airplane. It is only those who have no rationality, such dull headed people accept these sort of foolish proposals by scientists and do not protest the miss utilisation of public funds in such wasteful acts of childishness on the name of scientific research.You are only talking about production of parts (molecules) but those parts are already available in a living cell. Can scientists produce a cell by joining those parts (by taking needed molecules from a living cell)? Can scientists produce Bodhi Dhanapala by joining the separated parts (say, eyes, nose, kidney, brain and so on) of the body of Bodhi Dhanapala? Think about it! Life (organisms) doesn't come by mechanical assembly or chemical accumulation of parts. Organisms manifest by a miraculous (unknown and unknowable for present mechanistic science) organic developmental process. Even a child can understand this..
On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 4:27, Bodhi Dhanapala bodhi_dhana@yahoo.com [TheBecoming]<TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com> wrote:The chemical evolution hypothesis in the present context is hypothesis that molecules that can copy themselves (reproduced) evolved from even smaller molecules like methane, carbon dioxide , inorganic phosphates etc., as these are/were abundantly found in the early earth when life appeared some 3.77 billion years ago.I don't make ad hominem remarks. I am not ignorant, and neither are you..
What ever Darwin said about it in the 19th century is not relevant now, because we have more detailed knowledge about all this, and it is such science that should be discussed.Here are some research papers of most recent relevant research:Research
09 March 2020 | Open Access
Hydrodynamic accumulation of small molecules and ions into cell-sized liposomes against a concentration gradient
How small molecules could have accumulated within hypothetical protocells on the early Earth .…
Hironori Sugiyama, Toshihisa Osaki[…]Taro Toyota
Communications Chemistry 3, 32 (2020)
Research
06 May 2020
Genomic competition for noise reduction shaped evolutionary landscape of mir-4673
Ramin M. Farahani, Saba Rezaei-Lotfi & Neil Hunter
Systems Biology and Applications 6, 12
Research
04 May 2020 | Open Access
Turbulent coherent structures and early life below the Kolmogorov scale
Madison S. Krieger, Sam Sinai & Martin A. Nowak
Nature Communications 11, 2192
30 April 2020 | Open Access
NMR analysis of nucleotide π-stacking in prebiotically relevant crowded environmentMolecular crowding such as that which may occur in model protocells is known to reduce the rate and fidelity of…Communications Chemistry 3, 51
Niraja V. Bapat, Harshad Paithankar[…]Sudha Rajamani
Research
03 April 2020 | Open Access
Intercellular communication between artificial cells by allosteric amplification of a molecular signal
Bastiaan C. Buddingh', Janneke Elzinga & Jan C. M.. van Hest
Nature Communications 11, 1652
Research
11 March 2020 | Open Access
Compositional heterogeneity confers selective advantage to model protocellular membranes during the origins of cellular life
Susovan Sarkar, Shikha Dagar[…]Sudha Rajamani
Scientific Reports 10, 4483On Thursday, May 14, 2020, 11:13:47 AM GMT-5, Bhakti Niskama Shanta suresh_bbsr2000@yahoo.com [TheBecoming] <thebecoming@yahoogroups.com> wrote:Namaste Bodhi Dhanapala ji.You seems to be completely ignorant about "chemical evolution" hypothesis. Please spend sometime to learn these subjects and then comment.We have not yet discussed anything about the problems with the steps after chemical evolution (about biological evolution). However, that will also come in our future parts.Thank you.Sincerely,Bhakti Niskama Shanta, Ph.D.On Thursday, 14 May, 2020, 09:37:17 pm IST, Bodhi Dhanapala <bodhi_dhana@yahoo.com> wrote:As I already mentioned, "Darwin's warm little pond", or even the fossile record are NOT needed for the theory of evolution which claims that humans descended from apes, and from earlier forms of life, and traces this lineage right down to unicellular living beings (eucaryotes, archea) etc.We now have evidence from genetics, molecular biology to prove this step by stem. Also, such single cells have now been produced artificially in Vitro.Unfortunately the U tube speaker does not deal with any of this, but merely claiming that "public money" is being spent for this.Merely denying some thing is enough.On Thu May 14 2020 09:19:11 GMT-0500 (EST), Bhakti Niskama Shanta suresh_bbsr2000@yahoo.com [TheBecoming] <thebecoming@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
--
"All new ideas good or bad, great or small start with a one-man minority" - anonymous
A man without god is a man. A God without man is nothing!!
__._,_.___
Posted by: Xavier William <varekatx@gmail.com>
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (1) |
KERALITES - A moderated eGroup exclusively for Keralites...
To subscribe send a mail to Keralites-subscribe@yahoogroups.com.
Send your posts to Keralites@yahoogroups.com.
Send your suggestions to Keralites-owner@yahoogroups.com.
To unsubscribe send a mail to Keralites-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com.
Homepage: http://www.keralites.net
To subscribe send a mail to Keralites-subscribe@yahoogroups.com.
Send your posts to Keralites@yahoogroups.com.
Send your suggestions to Keralites-owner@yahoogroups.com.
To unsubscribe send a mail to Keralites-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com.
Homepage: http://www.keralites.net
.
__,_._,___
