It says that from God's perspective it's like that. Basically that he doesn't view time as we do. A day could be a day, it could be a million years. A supreme being wouldn't perceive time like us.

Da Uniburse exploded out of nothing. And den complex organisms ebolbed out of pure chance.

         - GD trash science thumpers

Life uh, finds a way…

I can’t believe I missed this thread all day.

Correct

So the newly formed organism that is composed of an algae and a bacteria

Does it always have to join to be created or

Can the new joined organism reproduce an already joined organism?

Might as well tag this one for pages of entertainment later.

There's a lot of evidence for one of those quotes but not the other.

You can probably figure out which is which.

Don't impose your limited ability to comprehend on others.

IBTL

OK sure thing.

These are the two most erudite discussions I have heard on this topic in a long time.

So two spontaneously created organisms spontaneously combined and recreated the spontaneous generation leading to millions of other organisms.

MH^2 ^2

Trust the science

I like my way better.

In the beginning, God used his natural laws and processes to create the universe and life.  Just like an all knowing and all powerful God would do.  God and science are one of the same.  The earth, life and cosmos and their complexity and vastness bear testimony of God every day.  We would do well to study science as this is knowing God.

That's actually pretty cool.

Also...I don't know why Christians are so leery about science and evoloutions and such

God controlls everything...why couldn't he also control evoloution?

Very clever.  Bravo!

Neat.

I won’t be around to find out what they grow into
Although it’d be neat to find out one day

So the way I understand this is...

An algae and a bacteria have evolved a symbiotic nitrogen-fixing relationship.
They've become so symbiotic that the bacteria has become incorporated into the cell of the algae.
It's become so integrated that the scientists are unable to culture the bacteria outside of its host algae.
Ergo, the bacteria has evolved into a nitrogen-fixing proto-organelle.
Observing this process is providing a glimpse into how cell organelles can evolve from symbiotic bacteria, like the suspected origin of mitochondria.

Does this mean that the species of algae with the new nitroplast could be considered a new branch of the tree of life?  We differentiate plant and animal cells based on the cell wall, chloroplasts, and other organelles, right?  So would a nitroplast algae no longer be considered a "plant"?  Given the prevalence of nitrogen-fixing bacteria associated with plants in general, I also wonder if other species of plants are evolving similar relationships.  I suppose we could also draw parallels with the symbiotic relationship between tree roots and fungal mycorrhizae (THIS is probably where we get triffids from, heh).  This whole topic is pretty fascinating; it's pretty amazing that scientists have stumbled across a symbiotic bacteria partway through its evolution into a new proto-organelle.  Makes me wonder what other possible organelles could evolve and/or be forced into evolving.  As in, could you artificially select for bacteria strains to have such symbiotic relationships with an arbitrary organism?  Imagine if you could infect someone with super-mitochondria to create stronger muscles or something.

deep sea hot vent chemosythisis, is this the forth type?


https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/invertebrates/hydrothermal-vent-creatures

Don't question the presuppositions of the science

Science as broad and deep as proves the universe is more than 6000 years old?

Zero

Stick to fighting the culture war.

Science is clearly not your forte, because what is being described here is not in anyway like fertilization.

Not every "Bible Thumper" believes in a young earth creation.

But to call this "evolution", or to even think that evolution is what gave rise to all we see on earth is hilarious. But OK, we can just keep ignoring DNA, and all the implications that come with it.

that was my thought as well

Please....present your competing hypothesis then. Ideally with a data set as large or larger than that for evolution.

There are a number of resources I could point you to that detail far more compelling arguments than evolution for the life we observe on earth. But let's be honest - you have the internet, if you cared at all, you'd do your own research.

But, just for fun: if you actually believe in evolution, perhaps you'd like to read "The Genesis Enigma" by Andrew Parker. He argues that evolution IS how all things came to be, but also that it aligns perfectly with the Biblical account in Genesis. He even breaks it all down verse by verse, using SCIENCE! So, if you want to believe in evolution, you can still be a Christian! Someone has that angle covered for you. My views do not align with the book, just so we're clear.

For the record, his book still assumes a Creator had to take action to make it all possible. If you reject that, then you'll have to present your own hypothesis of where all the matter in the universe came from, what kicked it all off and why, etc. And your data set will have to be larger than that for a Creator.

He's a Rockstar!

Absolutely the opposite of cherry picking. Stop projecting.

I agree. Evolution and god are not at odds with each other in any way.

The social gospel was a psyop

Uniparty of the House?