Login

Join for Free!
112026 members


PLEASE HELP! arguments in evolution

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Postby mith » Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:39 pm

lol
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr
User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Re: PLEASE HELP! arguments in evolution

Postby alextemplet » Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:06 pm

Feast23 wrote:
canalon wrote:
flynvfae wrote:thats because no one gives them a chance

That is because if you start by refusing science as part of your starting hypothesis, you are not likely to be published in anything scientific...

So in other words you are saying that you dont believe in God and the Bible is a book of lies :?:


No, he is saying that your ideas are not in any way scientific. There is nothing in the Bible to indicate that the creation stories are meant to be taken literally; indeed a careful study of theology tells us otherwise. And who are you to say that God could not have chosen to use evolutionary methods to create life? I think you are a bold man indeed to pretend to know the mind of God.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Re: PLEASE HELP! arguments in evolution

Postby canalon » Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:57 pm

Feast23 wrote:
canalon wrote:
flynvfae wrote:thats because no one gives them a chance

That is because if you start by refusing science as part of your starting hypothesis, you are not likely to be published in anything scientific...

So in other words you are saying that you dont believe in God and the Bible is a book of lies :?:

Alex put it very nicely.

[rant]
But it is also true that I do not believe in any god. And I think the bible is book written and compiled by humans over a very long period of time, and underwent several translations. I suspect it has an interest in anthropology and in history, both because of its influence on many civilizations and because some of the stories can be compared with other stories to reach truth behind the text as it arrived to us, but I do not consider the bible as the "word of God", nor any other text.
[/rant]

And to come back to the origin of my answer, yes if you want to publish anything in a scientific journal, using hypothesis that can be tested (directly or by their consequences) instead of citing sacred text is a good idea. Because there are many sacred texts with different creation myths and there are no proof than any of them is more (or less) true than the other, other than blind faith. On the other hand scientist use a set of hypothesis, theories and models that have been stated, tested, discussed and have been shown to be relatively reliable to make predictions. Until you can do the same with any sacred text, I don't think any of them can be used with any significance regarding any scientific issues (other than in history/social sciences).
Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada


Evolution testable & thus true?

Postby stevor » Wed Apr 30, 2008 4:31 pm

We definitely have mutations. We see them in organisms such as Staph aureus, which mutated to become MRSA (methicillin resistant Staph aureus). Methicillin was created in 1959 so it took almost 50 years for this small organism (not nearly as complex as a mammal) to "evolve".
What other "evolving" has been put on a time table? Has any larger organism evolved in the last 1000 years (that we can test, since it's only supposed to be valid to a scientist if it can be tested)? (This is not a rhetorical question. Please let me know.)
Since the universe started with the "big bang" 13.7 billion years ago (see Wikipedia) and it probably took some billions of years for matter to solidify to planets and longer for earth to become suitable for life as we know it, I don't think there are enough years for all the "evolving" that had to be done to evolve from an organic mess of chemicals (which took time to evolve from inorganic chemicals, too) to what we see today.
If you have some time table that can map out a "evolving" schedule better (how many billions of evolutions to get to man? How many per year?), and "test" it, then evolution is more than just your faith!
stevor
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 2:13 am

Postby alextemplet » Wed Apr 30, 2008 9:12 pm

If you look at evolution as a purely mathematical probability of random combinations and mutations of millions of genes composed of billions (perhaps trillions?) of particles, then I do not think that any organism even as complex as a bacteria (let alone a mammal!) would evolve in 100 billion years. However, evolution is more than just random probability. Various factors such as environmental conditions, predation, availability of food sources, and selective mating all conspire to narrow the possibilities of what can happen. Taking these factors into account, even a casual glance at the history of life on Earth will show the evolution of today's biodiversity to be quite a believable story.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Re: PLEASE HELP! arguments in evolution

Postby stevor » Wed Apr 30, 2008 10:22 pm

alextemplet,

Good, I'm glad you see it my way (actually, you don't see it my way yet, but you agree with the important part): "If you look at evolution as a purely mathematical probability of random combinations and mutations of millions of genes composed of billions (perhaps trillions?) of particles, then I do not think that any organism even as complex as a bacteria (let alone a mammal!) would evolve in 100 billion years. However, evolution is more than just random probability. Various factors such as environmental conditions, predation, availability of food sources, and selective mating all conspire to narrow the possibilities of what can happen. Taking these factors into account, even a casual glance at the history of life on Earth will show the evolution of today's biodiversity to be quite a believable story."

Remember, there were originally NO genes. First there had to be many various combinations of chemicals to create an organic molecule. That organic molecule could not mutate. Instead, other combinations had to come into being by having the right circumstances to combine them. (If you mix together the chemicals that make a benzene ring, don't expect the creation of one unless you get the right circumstances to make them come together in the right geometry).

A gene is much more complex. What "intermediary steps" would some chemicals take to end up with the first and simplest of genes (maybe one from a virus or simpler)? Then there would have to be some method for the gene to replicate itself. I wonder how long it would take for that mechanism to "evolve". I don't think there is enough time, as you seemed to agree.

"environmental conditions, predation, availability of food sources, and selective mating" are what make one animal express some genes instead of others (as is described in the current Scientific American magazine). It doesn't cause genes to mutate. It just favors ones that express one thing or another over another thing or another. What I'm talking about is way before "predation, food sources and the like" are involved at all. Those come into effect after an organism comes into existence. I don't think there's enough time for the complex organisms we see to come into existence.

Once they came into existence, the line of mammals with all their genes working and replicating correctly could make one variety (mammoth, which probably has pretty much the same set of genes as an elephant but expresses ones suitable for back then) to eventually lead to expressing the genes of elephants today. (I'd sure be interested in seeing a comparison of the genes of a few mammoths compared to a few elephants and see which ones changed in those years. If some somebody wanted to disprove evolution, this would probably be a way to do it.)
stevor
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 2:13 am

Postby mith » Thu May 01, 2008 12:07 am

If you mix together the chemicals that make a benzene ring, don't expect the creation of one unless you get the right circumstances to make them come together in the right geometry.


Just heat up some alkenes and dienes and you'll get some rings(diels alder reaction).
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr
User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Postby alextemplet » Thu May 01, 2008 2:18 am

Stevor, you are again implying that these molecules come together in a completely random manner; indeed nothing could be further from the truth. When hydrogen and oxygen combine to make water, is it random where the oxygen atom ends up? No; because of the interacting forces, the oxygen atom will always end up in exactly the same spot. Same with genetics. A gene is not as compicated as you suppose, at least not on a particle level. It contains only four bases: adenin, guanine, thymine, and cytosine. Adenine and guanine always pair together and cytosine and guanine always pair together; this is not random at all but merely the natural consequence of those particular molecules interacting with each other. We can therefor examine genetics in terms of binary code, as there are only two possibilities (A-T or G-C) at each link in the DNA sequence. Thus genetic codes are written in the simplest language imaginable: binary.

This means two things. First, it means the particles that form genes do not come together in any random fashion, but in a manner consistent with the properties of the interacting elements involved. Second, it means that even what we would perceive as a small change in one base-pair could in fact produce a much larger change than we would expect. The environmental factors I previously discussed would then act on those different mutations to weed out unsuitable ones (natural selection at work) and the surviving genes would then form the base code for the next round of mutations. It is indeed quite conceivable that some rather remarkable adaptations could be the result of only a few small changed in the DNA sequence.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Re: PLEASE HELP! arguments in evolution

Postby stevor » Thu May 01, 2008 4:27 am

So, you think there was enough time on earth (4.5 billion years old according to Wikipedia) for the nucleotides to evolve to be able to be paired up and then for them to randomly form a double helix to create DNA by a mechanism that wasn't designed?
Okay, that's your prerogative, but I don't think there was enough time in the maybe 3 billion years that the earth was inhabitable for the most primitive of organisms.
You have FAITH that in the theory of evolution and I don't.
stevor
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 2:13 am

Postby alextemplet » Thu May 01, 2008 3:10 pm

stevor wrote:So, you think there was enough time on earth (4.5 billion years old according to Wikipedia) for the nucleotides to evolve to be able to be paired up and then for them to randomly form a double helix to create DNA by a mechanism that wasn't designed?


Listen to what I'm saying. The nucleotides didn't have to "evolve" the ability to be paired up and from a double helix. They already form that because of the way they interact with each other! Just as hydrogen and oxygen always react to form water molecules of the same shape, so do nucleotides always combine to form a DNA structure. There's nothing random about it; it's merely the product of the properties of the molecules involved.

Stevor, how exactly are you defining "faith"? Sorry, I know that's straying from the subject, but I'm curious.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Re: PLEASE HELP! arguments in evolution

Postby stevor » Thu May 01, 2008 3:27 pm

Okay about continuing the story after the "evolution" of nucleotides. I think it would have taken real real long for them to evolve from a random mix of chemicals. Then to continue with the nucleotides affinity to pair up, they'd have to pair up in trillions of ways (or more) to end up with something that would make a gene. Though I am a bit rusty on this, didn't RNA or something else have to be "evolved" in order to replicate DNA? That would be more time to evolve.
No, I don't think there is enough time and I don't have "faith" that "life" was extraordinary enough to have hit the right "evolution" fast enough to create life on earth in the given time.
stevor
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 2:13 am

Re: PLEASE HELP! arguments in evolution

Postby MichaelXY » Thu May 01, 2008 6:19 pm

2 billion yr old alien bacteria found in metorite. Quoting part of the article
If true, the finding would support not only the existence of life beyond Earth but a theory that life came here from space, rather than emerging from a primordial soup on this planet.


http://www.space.com/searchforlife/ital ... 10511.html

It may be phooey, but worth considering...
Some more articles:
http://www.panspermia.org/zhmur1.htm
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/marslife.html
User avatar
MichaelXY
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 885
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 7:03 pm
Location: San Diego, Ca

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron