Origin of life

[alextemplet]

bd:

It's annoying because every response Springer has to a thread is ultimately the same exact thing with the exception of his choice of wording!

Yes, but two can play at that game. Watch now as I brilliantly change my wording to produce a seemingly-new answer to his questions!

Springer:

The belief that ID must be falsifiable to be science is a recent, arbitrary definition. There is no law that states something must be falsifiable to be science. That is a philosophical statement.

Philosophical, maybe, but science, like any other human endeavor, needs certain rules to guide it. The most important of those rules is falsifiability. Rules like this have governed science well for hundreds of years, so I don't think you or I are in any position to change that. ID, as you say, is unfalsifiable, and because of that it isn't science.

Evolution is likewise not falsifiable. Every single problem is addressed as, "we don't have all the answers, but somewhat it will be explained within the evolutionary paradigm."

Some people might say that, but the vast, overwhelming majority would consider that statement to be completely rediculous.

You seem to think that it's scientific to believe in something even if it can't be explained scientifically.

And exactly when did I say that?!?! That's exactly the point I'm trying to make to you!!!! Don't put words in my mouth . . .

If you disagree that the general theory of evolution (not a specific mechanism), is not falsifiable, please give an example of how it could be proven false.

Evolution (not the mechanism) is about how life changes to adapt to changing environments. Falsification would therefor be very simple: If life doesn't change with the environment, but instead becomes extinct, then it can be falsified. Obviously this doesn't happen; life changes when the environment does. Evolution occurs.

You have not beaten the horse to death, you have dodged the issue to death. Stating that RNA-based life came first doesn't prove anything. You have provided no details as to how RNA could self organize. If you proposed that it occurred by random molecular interactions, then you are dealing with the impossible. If you propose that occurred in steps through natural selection, then you need to propose how that is possible, because it's never been observed.

Once again:
1) Random interactions: If only a few dozen-base-long code is required for life, or even a few hundred bases long, given enough time, occuring on enough planets, then there's more than enough possibilities. Sooner or later, just like someone winning the lottery, it's going to happen.
2) Nonrandom interactions: My high-school biology teacher once told me that, when biological molecules are present together, they naturally interact to produce simple structures. A common example is when phospholipids produce micelles and phospholipid bilayers. The same is true of nucleotides forming single- and double-helix chains. Given this, the probability mentioned in #1 becomes even more favorable.

That is inaccurate stereotyping. I believe in God, as you do. You don't see any reason why God couldn't have used evolution. I agree. I do not believe He used evolution because I don't see the evidence that He did. What I see is filtered evidence used to defend a preconceived ideology of materialism.

So, we agree that we're really talking about God here? I suppose it's good that we can agree on something, but I am NOT a materialist. I despise their philosophy and do not in any way share their views. Materialism is a philosophy concerned only with the pleasures of this earth. I am much more interested in living a good spiritual life than a good material life. Now who's inaccurate stereotyping?

Evolution relies on supernatural forces. One, for example, is natural selection.

Let me say this more clearly, NATURAL selection. As in NATURAL, not SUPERnatural. How did you ever draw this conclusion?

As for the feather, I must apologize on this one. I know I promised to look that up this weekend, but sadly it slipped my mind. I know that sounds weak but it's true. As for molecules to cells, we've already been over this.

Nature does not proclaim gradualism... it proclaims intelligent design. The fossil record is discontinuous. Living species are not connected by gradual intermediates. There are no living transitional species of the more than two million plants and animals. That is not predicted by evolution. The illusion that the evidence points to Darwinism is only because of 150 years of rationalization of the facts.

Why do transitional species have to be living? What's wrong with them being extinct? That seems quite probable, considering that when one species evolved into another, the ancestral species becomes extinct. After all, the whole reason it evolves is that the ancestral species can no longer survive in its environment. And to claim that there's no transitions is false; I have already listed several.

No one is saying that creation occurred in a puff of smoke. Evolutionists are the ones more closely alligned with that thinking (big bang)

Since you are religious, here's an interesting bit of trivia. The Big Bang was proposed by the Catholic Church in order to prove that God exists. That makes sense, too; I mean, what else could've caused the Big Bang.

P.S.: My beliefs, even religious, are based on observation as well as faith. Why do you believe in God if you see no evidence of His existence in nature? To me that is a paradox.

Yes, my beliefs are also based on observation as well as faith. And I never said that I see no evidence of God's existence. If you'll remember, I've already cited the precision with which the universe is balanced to support life. And I could also list some spiritual experiences that to me were nothing short of miraculous, although for personal reasons I'd rather not disclose what those were. I see evidence for God, so I have faith in Him; likewise, I see evidence for evolution, so I conclude that's how God created life. In my opinion it's a quite beautiful way to look at things.

[b_d_41501]

Incredible, i must say. However, i do not have the patience for it. lol

[alextemplet]

bd:

Incredible, i must say. However, i do not have the patience for it. lol

Ha ha! I, however, enjoy annoying people. My plan is to out-aggravate him. I hope it works.

[Springer]

quote="alextemplet"

Philosophical, maybe, but science, like any other human endeavor, needs certain rules to guide it. The most important of those rules is falsifiability. Rules like this have governed science well for hundreds of years, so I don't think you or I are in any position to change that.

To my knowledge Karl Popper first introduced the concept of falsifiability in 1963. It is not a universally agreed upon standard.

Evolution (not the mechanism) is about how life changes to adapt to changing environments. Falsification would therefor be very simple: If life doesn't change with the environment, but instead becomes extinct, then it can be falsified. Obviously this doesn't happen; life changes when the environment does. Evolution occurs.

When most people speak of "evolution", they are referring to macroevolution. Examples such as industrial melanism, antimicrobial resistance in bacteria, and fruit-fly mutations are all examples of microevolution. Macroevolution has never been observed. This is acknowledged by evolutionists and creationists alike. Thus, according to your above criteria, evolution has been falsified. Life does not change (in the sense of macroevolution) with the environment.

The reason I submit that evolution cannot be falsified is because evolutionists appeal to unknown laws to support their theory. They brush off any and all hostile evidence with the disclaimer, " we don't understand all the mechanisms or laws of science that caused evolution... we just know that it happened".

Once again:
1) Random interactions: If only a few dozen-base-long code is required for life, or even a few hundred bases long, given enough time, occuring on enough planets, then there's more than enough possibilities.

The simplest single cell life that we can observe requires DNA with hundreds of thousands of base pairs. You suppose that a few hundred base pairs would support life. That is a baseless conjecture.
How many planets do you think are in existence that could support molecules to man evolution? (i.e., the correct composition, distance from the sun, atmosphere, abundant surface water, ideal mixtures of organic compounds, etc., etc.) Even if you seize every benefit of the doubt, which you can't, you are still left with an impossibility.

Sooner or later, just like someone winning the lottery, it's going to happen.

You need to realistically think of the probabilities before you make a statement like that.

2) Nonrandom interactions: My high-school biology teacher once told me that, when biological molecules are present together, they naturally interact to produce simple structures. A common example is when phospholipids produce micelles and phospholipid bilayers.

Yes, some organic molecules react non-randomly. That does not provide any indication that DNA can form into a complex genetic code without intelligent input.

The same is true of nucleotides forming single- and double-helix chains. Given this, the probability mentioned in #1 becomes even more favorable.

No, DNA cannot self-organize. That is baseless conjecture.

Let me say this more clearly, NATURAL selection. As in NATURAL, not SUPERnatural. How did you ever draw this conclusion?

You think that undirected random events can lead to complexity, such as powered flight in birds, photosynthesis, and the binary code of the optic nerve. That is truely miraculous.

Why do transitional species have to be living? What's wrong with them being extinct? That seems quite probable, considering that when one species evolved into another, the ancestral species becomes extinct.

Evolutionists are always insisting that extinction is not predicted by evolution. Punctuated equilibrium states that small populations evolve rapidly,... not replacing the entire species. Given the innumerable living species, there is no reason why there shouldn't be living transitional species... evolution has failed in another prediction.

Since you are religious, here's an interesting bit of trivia. The Big Bang was proposed by the Catholic Church in order to prove that God exists. That makes sense, too; I mean, what else could've caused the Big Bang.

What makes you so certain that there ever was a "big bang"? I have never read any compelling evidence that such an event occurred.

Yes, my beliefs are also based on observation as well as faith. And I never said that I see no evidence of God's existence. If you'll remember, I've already cited the precision with which the universe is balanced to support life. And I could also list some spiritual experiences that to me were nothing short of miraculous, although for personal reasons I'd rather not disclose what those were. I see evidence for God, so I have faith in Him; likewise, I see evidence for evolution, so I conclude that's how God created life. In my opinion it's a quite beautiful way to look at things.

I understand that you have had spiritual experiences, and use that as evidence of God's existence. That is logical. However, I cannot understand why you acknowledge God's existence, but think that he had nothing to do with the creation and diversity of life. You apparently think that natural selection did everything. That is perplexing, when you consider the fact that there are so many things that cannot be explained in nature in terms of gradualism. I invite you to just consider the feather, as I mentioned before. There is no credible explanation as to how such a specialized structure could have evolved from a scale through natural selection. Why don't you think it was design? You believe in God. Why are you denying His hand in nature?

[catfishjim]

When most people speak of "evolution", they are referring to macroevolution. Examples such as industrial melanism, antimicrobial resistance in bacteria, and fruit-fly mutations are all examples of microevolution. Macroevolution has never been observed. This is acknowledged by evolutionists and creationists alike. Thus, according to your above criteria, evolution has been falsified. Life does not change (in the sense of macroevolution) with the environment.

I think the reason that a lot of people have trouble with evolution is that it is so difficult to step back and consider the macro picture. (That's one reason why some early scientists were slow to come out and formulate the theory: until the late 1700s, the creation of the earth was placed at around 5,000 BC, so macro-evolution didn't make any sense. ) We naturally think in terms of time as measured in our own life experience. In that sense, a concept of macro-evolution will always be a theoretical construct.

[Springer]

quote="catfishjim"

I think the reason that a lot of people have trouble with evolution is that it is so difficult to step back and consider the macro picture. (That's one reason why some early scientists were slow to come out and formulate the theory: until the late 1700s, the creation of the earth was placed at around 5,000 BC, so macro-evolution didn't make any sense. ) We naturally think in terms of time as measured in our own life experience. In that sense, a concept of macro-evolution will always be a theoretical construct.

I cannot accept the common extrapolation of microevolution to macroevolution. It is illogical and unscientific. Evolutionists think that by simply adding time that anything is possible. In the first place, the mechanisms of macroevolution and microevolution are different.

Biologists prior to Darwin were not constrained to 5,000 year old earth. They rejected evolution because they viewed nature as discontinuuous,
recognized irreducible complexity, and believed it impossible to bridge the gaps.

[catfishjim]

I cannot accept the common extrapolation of microevolution to macroevolution. It is illogical and unscientific. Evolutionists think that by simply adding time that anything is possible.

That's exactly what Darwin said: "the gift of time."

In the first place, the mechanisms of macroevolution and microevolution are different.

If you are saying that a given microevolutionary change doesn't have to lead to a particular macrodevelopment, I would agree in the sense that the macro changes are ultimately dependent on so many outside factors. But the micro changes do necessarily point in a certain direction. That's what the micro changes are all about.

Biologists prior to Darwin were not constrained to a 5,000 year old earth.

Of course they were constrained by this concept. Even in the 1780s, serious biologists and geologists were afraid of publishing ideas based on a cosmic model that included an older earth. Even in England (which was not especially religious at the time), the universities were dominated by the religious establishment. Spreading heretical theories was a good way to lose your job.

[mith]

Thats nice when your a moderator and you know all these discussions
but this is a particular question here
if its not open to discuss because you have discussed it all over other threads then why is it open?

just trying to understand
I have yet to see any new information either.

It's open because people keep repeating the same questions. Look over the previous 10+ pages and you'll probably find every question repeated at least twice....plus we're against censorship(as long as it doesn't violate the forum rules, our hands are pretty much tied)

[mith]

No, I'm asking for evidence, and you haven't provided any.

Well as the author write, "If that event was a trivial one and could be easily simulated in a laboratory, I would not be now writing this paper, as the problem of the origin of life would have been solved long ago."

There is no evidence that abiogenesis is possible... not in that paper you sited or in any reported research that I've come across. You can only speak in vague generalizations and refuse to give me any specific reason to believe abiogenesis is possible.

What is evidence of possibility? The formation of the components of proto-bionts violate no physical or chemical rules and to me that seems reason enough to believe it's possible. You keeping wanting specifics, how specific? If it was known in a detailed step-by-step manuscript wouldn't it have been created already in a lab?

I've read multiple articles on abiogenesis and have found no evidence that it's possible. If you disagree, then specifically state what mechanisms could have been in operation to allow its occurance. Simply stating that there are articles out there that disprove what I'm saying is not an argument. You need to specifically state what principles of science are involved to allow life to evolve from non-life.

No it isn't an argument. I'm saying it because I'm tired of doing your research for you. Read above comments on how the demand for specifics will go unanswered.

Argument from Incredulity
It has become popular for evolutionists to assault their oponents with the "incredulity" argument... as if it's a fault to disbelieve something that makes no scientific sense.

That's the point, you claim it makes no scientific sense but how much do you know about science? How can you claim it makes no scientific sense when you attack scientists for being materialistic when the basis of science is naturalistic and empirical observations!

You seem to be guilty of personal incredulity. You will apparently believe that anything is possible with evolution, as long as it doesn't invoke the necessity of intelligent design.

This had nothing to do with belief. It's about what is scientific and what isn''t(ID). This board is a forum of science. I have my own personal beliefs and I try to separate them from science when I post. You should too.

[AstusAleator]

Springer, what "unknown law" of evolution is untestable or unrefutable? You cite lack of "proof." The question should be whether it's testable or not, proof comes after that determination.

[b_d_41501]

I think that Springer is the reincarnated soul of Archbishop Ussher...lol

[mith]

no ad hominem's, intended to be funny or not