Origin of life

[mith]

@Patrick
Agreed, it was fun and even enlightening at first to see what some aspects of evolution can be further investigated. Springer brought up some questions that I have never really considered before and made me actually research and find out more about biology, physics and chemistry. But when same topics which have already been discussed and settled are brought up again and again and again, it just gets tedious and annoying.

@Springer
We've already discussed topics such as falsifiabilty, scientific-ness of ID, reliabilty, theory vs assumptions vs conclusion, calculation methods, fossil records etc....more than enough times(i.e. more than 3 times in some case) in threads spread all over the board. Unless you have something actually new AND scientific to post, don't.

[Springer]

quote="Canalon"[

... And, as a matter of fact, some people still complain that biology has yet to fuly give to evolution and accept it more completely including in the gene regulations and more molecular mechanisms that are still described in a very deterministic way (I feel close to this kind of thought).
But someone has yet to come with a scientific alternative to evolution. ID by being unable to make any supposition on what its limits are (God almighty not being bound by any rules) is definitely disqualified.

I don't think ID will fit your definition of "science". If I make that concession, does that mean that ID is wrong and evolution is right? You keep implying that if something isn't "science", it can't be considered as correct.

You expect me to tell you by what limits God is bound, and how he actually created life. You are equallly unable to describe how the first life formed through naturalism. You cannot provide any mechanisms or explain how any laws allow life to form. You believe abiogenesis just happened. You make up mechanisms but have no evidence that any proposed pathways are operational. I don't understand why you think ID is religion and abiogenesis is science.

[mith]

The conclusion that protobionts existed is based only on the presumption that evolution is the answer and that ID is non-existent. It's not based on aniy evidence that they are biologically possible or that they could form through natural processes.

Excerpt describing the formation of the "membrane" of the protobiont.

Keto-enol tautomerism is a widely distributed state of
substances that possess a carbonyl group. Usually,
tautomeric equilibrium is strongly shifted toward the
keto-tautomer. Enolization of the lipid ester carbonyl
and substitution of two protons in lipid molecules by a
magnesium ion is a highly unlikely, yet not prohibited by
the laws of chemistry, event. (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.)
http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=5& ... pdf&e=9797

Many other different models, none of which are impossible. If you know enough molecular chemistry to prove this argument false, be my guest.

If they can't demonstrate any living examples of "proto-cells" or "pre-bionts", then they should demonstrate specifically how such a thing could form in terms of probability and known chemistry, and offer actual proposals as to how such would be functional and subject to the effects of natural selection.

See above. If how it can be made was exactly know, then it wouldn't be a theoretical item would it?

That is not true. Most people don't believe life evolved from inorganic matter.

I'm sorry, I meant to say scientists, the number of supporters I have already cited before.

The evolutionists are always complaining about ID being a religion, that those who believe in ID are swayed only by their religion, yet when zealots such as Dawkins spout off their atheistic ideology they see now relevancy of that to their competency as a scientist....

You need to consider that and not put so much trust in what you deem as "science".

Of course, especially those reports that one day say coffee is good for health and the next day say coffee isn't. But the basics of TOE have been unchanged for a long time.

I didn't say it was wrong, I just said it wasn't science. It's considered a theological position and therefore unfalsifiable. You can preach it as a belief, but you can't have it as a part of the curriculum in schools.

By excluding ID from consideration, you are saying it's wrong.

If someone does a faulty experiment, it doesn't matter whether the results are right or wrong, the conclusions will be discarded because it isn't science. It's called serendipity or lucky guess.

ID pretends to be science but it doesn't fulfill all the rules and requirements. Therefore, whether it is true or not, it can't be accepted as scientific.

No, you don't have to assume that everything can be explained by materialism. That is an unjustified, irrational assumption.

While science hasn't explained the mind or consciousness, it doesn't mean materialism is unjustified. What I see is what there is. doesn't seem very irrational or unjustified to me.

And it doesn't matter what we think, naturalism is a part of science. As I said before, you're more than welcome to start a philosophical thread debating the merits of science.
Don't be a parrot Springer.

[AstusAleator]

You expect me to tell you by what limits God is bound, and how he actually created life

If you could do that then yes, Creationism could be considered more scientific. (note I didn't say ID, as ID has more connotations than just a God/Creator).

If you think about it, the myths and stories of the Bible (using Christianity as an example since I know it better than any other religion) are themselves the initial steps of the scientific method. Observations, and postulated answers based upon those obersvations. At a time when little was known about science, the only attainable, understandable, and useful answer was God. That and I also believe that humans have a spiritual capacity that they were beginning to realize at the beginnings of written history.

The creation myths (plural) in the Old Testament are attempts to explain the origins of life according to what the scholars of that time could theorize based on their observations (and of course divine inspiration).

Upon developing the Scientific Method, many of the "answers" provided by religion became hypotheses. Early scientists operated entirely within the bounds of their religions, but the nature of scientific inquiry proved so many aspects of religion wrong that the two finally became seperated.
If you look at religion as a two-part attempt to a) explain lifes existence and the relationship of physical entities and b) define our spiritual existance as it may relate to a higher being (god), then it might be possible to look at things a little differently.

Science concentrates on finding the answers to the first question. Wouldn't it make sense that by coming closer to understanding the answers to the first question that we're better equipping ourselves to answer the second? I think most theologists agree that the definitions of the physical world AND of God in the Old Testament are faulty and contradictory, especially in relation to modern conceptions.

To hypothesize abiotic origins of life is NOT necessarily a denial of God (though sadly scientists with athiestic agendas have tried to use it as such). It is simply a logical step in the system of Scientific Inquiry.

If it were to be proven that abiogeneis was not only possible but probable, that would still not rule out the existence of a Creator/God.
I think that as we discover more of the incredible complexity of the world we live in, via science, we're better equipping ourselves to understand any spiritual relationships that may exist.

Theories of Creation can be scientific (aka refutable), given enough parameters, and in fact without those basic theories at the beginning of civilization, Science would never have existed.


Anyhow, plz don't get mad at me for getting into theology. I think it's an important line of logic to follow especially regarding the current debate. There is a certain point at which we still cannot completely seperate theology and science and this is it.

[alextemplet]

Springer:

The reason abiogenesis and evolution are linked is because both are materialistic explanations of life, and both deny the existence of intelligent design.

Bull. You have said often that evolution somehow "denies" God's existence, but in fact it does no such thing. That is only an opinion born of your own reluctance to integrate science and religion, and it contains absolutely no factual basis whatsoever.

Humans are not classified as apes. My point is that you cannot prove that australopithecus was any less of an ape or any more "human" than a chimpanzee.

Wrong again. Humans and apes are all classified as part of the same family, Hominidae. Apes fall under the genus Pan, humans under Homo, and Australopithecus is just another genus in the same family. As for being more human than a chimp, Australopithecus was almost exactly like a chimp, except it walked upright. Sounds more human to me.

That is a very subjective interpretation, and not all agree with that. Even if you are correct, that in no way proves that it is ancestral to whales. Seals are amphibious mammals and do not qualify as transitionals.

No, it's not a "subjective interpretation," it's a fact based on the evidence. Seals of course are not related to whales; they are in fact classified in the order Carnivora. Ambulocetus, however, is part of the order Cetecea, the same as whales, because its anatomy is so similar. In fact, its anatomy puts in perfectly between the Mesonychids (my apologies if that's misspelled) and whales. A perfect "missing link."

I agree with you. I'm not trying to argue the fallacy of evolution because of the way it's argued by some... I agree that God could have used evolution to conduct the creative process. I just don't see the evidence that he did.

Yes you are. You say that evolution is unscientific because it's a religion, which it is not. Just because a few people have interpreted it that way doesn't mean it is. My point still stands.

When I was in college I believed in theistic evolution. I have approached this debate in a very open minded way. I've always believed that intelligent design existed. But I have been open minded to the possibility of evolution.

Good for you. But the very fact that you have made us all repeat ourselves so many times shows us that you are, today, closed-minded.

You cannot overemphasize the problem of bias in any scientific research.

I agree; that's why I don't trust creation "science." It's way too biased to be credible.

Categorically dismissing the possibility that intelligent design exists in nature under the pretext that it's "religion" and out of the realm of science is unscientific and completely illogical.

Speaking only for myself, I have never said that an "intelligent designer" doesn't exist. In fact let's just call Him God, because that's what we really mean here; after all ID is nothing more than old-fashioned creationism without the word God. Anyway, I do believe in God, and I believe He was responsible for the way our universe and life came into being, and I believe He did that using natural methods. But just because I believe it doesn't make God a credible scientific argument. I can't prove that He exists and you can't disprove it; furthermore, the fact that God can do anything, that anything is possible with God, makes it impossible to derive testable hypothesis based on religion. So something religious may not be wrong, but that doesn't make it science.

I also enjoyed this debate when it first started, but now it's just getting annoying. I feel like I'm trapped in a movie that keeps getting rewound before it gets to the ending. And this popcorn needs salt in a bad way.

[b_d_41501]

Where does Springer get the information that evolution completely rules out an intelligent designer? Man, this thread is spinning out of control with his unintelligent remarks...

[Springer]

Where does Springer get the information that evolution completely rules out an intelligent designer? Man, this thread is spinning out of control with his unintelligent remarks...

The nonexistence of intelligent design is implicit in every evolutionary argument. Natural selection by definition operates without intelligent direction. Peruse a journal of paleontology, and show me one article that considers that ID might be possible. Atheism is alway implied.

[alextemplet]

Springer, you yourself have admitted that God could've used evolution to create life, so you yourself have thereby admitted that evolution is not inherently contradictory to intelligent design. The reasons scientists don't address ID is because it isn't science. Scientists concern themselves with finding natural explanations, not invoking divine providence everytime they get confused. ID implies that anything is possible, and everything is the way it is simply because that's how God wants it to be. True or not, that's worthless as science. As someone else has already said, ID says that I can't think of a way for this to happen, so there isn't one. That's absolutely worthless as a scientific idea. That's why scientists don't give ID any attention, because it isn't science.

[Springer]

quote="alextemplet"

Springer, you yourself have admitted that God could've used evolution to create life, so you yourself have thereby admitted that evolution is not inherently contradictory to intelligent design.

The theory of evolution excludes God because it proposes that solely natural selection produced everything as we know it. The implication is always that ID is non-existent.

The reasons scientists don't address ID is because it isn't science. Scientists concern themselves with finding natural explanations,...

The reason "scientists" don't address ID is because, as you just stated, they're seeking natural explanations. They assume that evolution can provide all the answers. There is nothing "unscientific" about ID. What is "scientific" about theories of abiogenesis? There is no evidence it occurred, no proposed mechanisms that can withstand any scientific scrutiny, and no evidence that it exists today or is even possible. It is a conclusion based on a belief in materialism. That is religion, not science.

...not invoking divine providence everytime they get confused.

You have incorrectly concluded that a belief in ID is not a conclusion based on evidence, but a default position.

ID implies that anything is possible, and everything is the way it is simply because that's how God wants it to be.

That is a statement of your theology, not mine. I don't believe God can do anything. ID does not propose that a creator is not bound by laws.

ID says that I can't think of a way for this to happen, so there isn't one. That's absolutely worthless as a scientific idea.

What's worthless as science is the pre-drawn conclusion that regardless of my inability to explain a mechanism, evolution must have produced it.

That's why scientists don't give ID any attention, because it isn't science

On the topic of abiogenesis...
Observation: a man pulls a rabbit out of a hat.
Conclusion 1 (evolution): the rabbit just "appeared" [magic]
Conclulsion 2: (ID) an intelligent source put it there [science]

The theory of evolution excludes God because it proposes that solely natural selection produced everything as we know it.

Thus, the theory of evolution is a theologic/philosophical belief.

[AstusAleator]

I'm getting the feeling that no-one read my post

[Springer]

I'm getting the feeling that no-one read my post

I just returned from a trip and apologize for not replying to your post earlier.

You speak of "myths" of the Old Testament as you're stating a self-evidence truth, when in reality it is a manifestation of supreme arrogance. Perhaps you might consider that Sir Isaac Newton, revered by many as the greatest scientist in history, studied the Bible daily and belived his observations in science proved its truthfullness.

I realize that appeal of perceived "authority" may not be a valid scientific argument, but to categorically state that the Old Testament is a "myth" as if all intelligent people would agree is the height of narrow-mindedness.

[b_d_41501]

What is "scientific" about theories of abiogenesis? There is no evidence it occurred, no proposed mechanisms that can withstand any scientific scrutiny, and no evidence that it exists today or is even possible. It is a conclusion based on a belief in materialism. That is religion, not science.

Wow man, you are getting wilder every day with this stuff. Actually, under the right conditions the prerequisites for life can be produced. All that you need are the right conditions and a spark. I'm a very religious person and I thought that I could be close-minded at times, but you are taking it to an entirely new level, dude. Let's keep it simple here, if it can't be proven in a laboratory then it isn't science! Natural selection can be proven in a laboratory and things microevolve everyday!!! Things aren't divinely created everyday, but am I saying that God isn't somehow directing the cycle of existence in some way undetectable, no I am not!!