Login

Join for Free!
112112 members


Origin of life

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Postby Springer » Fri Feb 03, 2006 3:53 pm

quote="AstusAleator"

I used to be one of the "annoying few" religious people that believed that there was an organized atheistic movement among scientists. I still do believe that some scientists have made it their personal goals to disprove God, which is quite unfortunate for the reasons I posted above. My belief was based on my perceptions that science directly contradicted what I believed, but also from witnessing avid proponents of evolution degrade and ridicule my religion.


Evolution by natural selection excludes God, because it attempts to explain everything in terms of naturalism. Every ad hoc explanation is offered and considered, as long as intelligent design is excluded. That is not objective science and is illogical.



_at_
Springer: I feel like you didn't read my post. Being ignored makes me very sad :(. About scientific alternatives: UFO's planting life on earth is (while improbable and probably ridiculous) a scientific alternative theory because there would be a logical way to go about testing it. It doesn't defy any laws of physics that we know of. Most testing methods are still beyond our technological reach (space exploration, etc), but that doesn't change the fact that there are ways to search for evidence of it occuring, or to scientifically refute it. Of course then that begs the question of where the alien life came from.
I know it's a ridiculous example, but I'm trying to show the difference between metaphysics and science.


Panspermia is dodging the question. If life was planted here by aliens, then the question remains,... where did the aliens come from. Did they evolved, or was intelligent design operative. You cannot simply add more time to keep the theory of evolution intact.

Just because someone hasn't come up with a reasonable scientific alternative to the overall theory of evolution yet doesn't mean there isn't one.


The overall theory of evolution encompasses all naturalistic explanations, known or unknown.

How long was the earth flat before it was round? How long did sun, and the universe for that matter, circle the earth before the earth circled the sun?


May I remind you that in the 1400's most scientists believed in the geocentric theory of the universe because of observation. Much like evolutionists today, they made an unfounded assumption, and convinced themselves that all of their obervations fit that assumption. If an observation was discrepant, then new theories were invented to explain the facts. There was no "conspiracy". The fact is, history has taught us that the majority of "scientists" can be dead wrong. Human nature has not changed.
Springer
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:20 am

Postby Springer » Fri Feb 03, 2006 4:27 pm

quote="alextemplet"

Birds from reptiles, perhaps I would understand, but humans and apes are not very different at all. We're more similar than dogs and wolves, which are both the same species. Australopithecus evolving into a human would be, by your definition, microevolution.


There are enormous differences between apes and humans, not the least of which is intelligence associated with a three-fold increase in brain size.

Let's compare chimp and human.

Looking genome wide there are about 35 million single nucleotide that are different plus about 5 million indels (insertion/deletion=indel). Assume a 10 million year evolution, which is generous. 40 million nucleotide differences would have to have accumulated over a ten million year period. 40,000,000 divided by 10,000,000 gives you 4 nucleotides established genome wide per year for ten million years. This simply does not happen in nature and something infinitly more important. Evolutionists have been telling us that we are virtually identical to apes and the fact is that we are vastly different. For every 400 nucleotides in the human genome as compared to the chimpanzee genome there is one difference by even the most conservative estimate.

Although obvious phenotypic similaries exist between man and apes, evolutionists cannot explain any mechanism as to how we could be related.


The fossil record shows us a continual transition from reptiles to dinosaurs to birds, all the bird-like features gradually appearing, even feathers.


That is simply untrue. There is no continuum between birds and reptiles, and no explanation for the evolution of the feather, either empirically or conceptually.

I don't fully understand what genes and selective forces were responsible for this, but it is fairly clear to me that the change occurred.


Evolutionists have stated this, but there is no evidence of such.

Whether God was guiding it or it happened by itself, one evolved into the other.

If you believe God has His hand in it, you're denyinig a pillar of evolutionary thinking... natural selection.


And I agree with mithril's "why not?" explanation. If you change the wavelenth of a ray of light by 1 nm per minute, then at first you won't see a change at all because it's so small. After a while, you'll see a completely different color light. (This is meant to represent one species evolving into another similar species) Wait longer, and you won't see visible light anymore. You'll see either infrared or ultraviolet, depending on whether the changes shorten or lengthen the wavelength. (This is meant to represent one "kind," as Linn calls it, evolving into another.) Wait long enough and you'll get either x-rays or gamma rays. My point is that, given enough time, the same mechanism produces tiny changes which lead to big changes which lead to truly incredible changes. So I repeat mithril's question, why can't natural selection account for the changes we see in nature?


The analogy doesn't work because you can't gradually go from, for example, an amphibian to a reptile. One has a reproductive system involving aquatic eggs and complex metamorphosis, while the reptile lays terrestrial eggs which hatch fully differentiated offspring. You cannot gradually go from a reptilian lung to an avian lung. The two organs are vastly different, and visualizing functional intermediates is impossible. This is an insurmountable problem for gradualism. I agree that gradualism might work in some cases, but you can't use those examples to prove that it is universally plausible.
Springer
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:20 am

Postby MrMistery » Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:52 pm

the same metamorphosis appears as in amphibians apears in reptiles, birds and humans. Humans, for example, have something resembling gills during development in the uterus. IT's just that reptiles use the hard egg and allow the ofspring to develop on inside the amnios as oposed to developing in the water.This creates independence from water.

You cannot gradually go from a reptilian lung to an avian lung


WHy not?
"As a biologist, I firmly believe that when you're dead, you're dead. Except for what you live behind in history. That's the only afterlife" - J. Craig Venter
User avatar
MrMistery
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 6832
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Romania(small and unimportant country)


Postby Springer » Fri Feb 03, 2006 8:27 pm

MrMistery wrote:the same metamorphosis appears as in amphibians apears in reptiles, birds and humans. Humans, for example, have something resembling gills during development in the uterus. IT's just that reptiles use the hard egg and allow the ofspring to develop on inside the amnios as oposed to developing in the water.This creates independence from water.

You cannot gradually go from a reptilian lung to an avian lung


WHy not?


You obviously must grossly oversimplify a pathway to bear any semblance of credibility. The amniotic egg is totally different from a terrestrial egg. You cannot demonstrate a step by step sequence of one leading to another.
What is you point in eluding to the pharyngeal clefts of human embryos which "resemble gills?"
Springer
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:20 am

Postby AstusAleator » Fri Feb 03, 2006 8:35 pm

Springer... you have yet to respond to my post about creation in any form not fitting into the realm of science. You've clearly either not read it or are completely disregarding it.
Macroevolution does not rule out creation, as creation clearly defies all the laws upon which the theory of macroevolution is based. Creation operates outside the parameters of science. It's possible that God is playing a huge joke on us by creating the geological time scale and planting fossils in it.

Even so, no-one can deny that the scientific advances we've made in our attempts to uncover our pre-history have been amazing and the technology that has developed out of it has helped humanity in many ways.

It is a scientific attempt to understand the world and universe we live in. Period.

about panspermia, you're right. It just extends the question.
User avatar
AstusAleator
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:51 pm
Location: Oregon, USA

Postby mith » Fri Feb 03, 2006 10:10 pm

Springer wrote:Mithrilhack: I think you should elaborate on this statement you made:

There are many people with strange mutations that cause them to grow extra limbs, gills, etc...This can be interpreted 2 ways. Either random mutations caused the growth, or it triggered a recessive sequence. If you believe the former, then yes, big changes can occur simply from mutations


Any extra "limb" is produced by a single mutation, not by sequential mutations required by evolution. Furthermore, all such limbs are deformed and non-functional.

Where did you get the idea that humans have ever acquired "gills" by mutation?

I don't remember a specific source, but there have been news of "freaks" who have retained gills developed while they were embryos and these never changed into parts of the face such as ears. And there's other cases of people who grew tails.

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Mutation
Mutations aren't limited to a base by base basis, there are ways in which the whole chromosome or large chunks of code changes.
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 Springer » Fri Feb 03, 2006 11:01 pm

quote="mithrilhack"


I don't remember a specific source, but there have been news of "freaks" who have retained gills developed while they were embryos and these never changed into parts of the face such as ears. And there's other cases of people who grew tails.


The "tails" to which you refer are rudimentary and non-functional anomalies. No such thing would ever persist in the species by natural selection.

Human embryos do not possess gills at any stage of development.

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Mutation
Mutations aren't limited to a base by base basis, there are ways in which the whole chromosome or large chunks of code changes.


You are correct... and all of these mutations to which you refer are harmful, not beneficial to the species.
Springer
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:20 am

Postby Springer » Fri Feb 03, 2006 11:09 pm

quote="AstusAleator"

Springer... you have yet to respond to my post about creation in any form not fitting into the realm of science. You've clearly either not read it or are completely disregarding it.


Let's assume, for argument's sake, that evolution is science and ID is not. I am arguing against evolution. If I can prove evolution wrong, then ID obviously is the best viable alternative. What evolutionists do is refuse to accept scrutiny because any criticism of evolution is deemed "creationism" and thus "unscientific". If you want to call evolution "science", then you must accept scrutiny. Every time hostile evidence is presented, your defense is "it's not science".

Macroevolution does not rule out creation, as creation clearly defies all the laws upon which the theory of macroevolution is based.


Macroevolution by natural selection rules out intelligent design, by definition.

Creation operates outside the parameters of science.


Creation is not "magic". Intelligent design operates within laws we don't understand. You seem to have no problem accepting abiogenesis, despite the fact that you have no clue what laws were in operation to cause self-assembly of DNA. Why is that within the realm of science and creation excluded?

It's possible that God is playing a huge joke on us by creating the geological time scale and planting fossils in it.


There is nothing in the fossil record that proclaims evolution. The fossil record is evidence of intelligent design. The geologic column is imaginary and not supported by objective science.

Even so, no-one can deny that the scientific advances we've made in our attempts to uncover our pre-history have been amazing and the technology that has developed out of it has helped humanity in many ways.


If you're suggesting that evolution has helped humanity, you're really stretching.
Springer
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:20 am

Postby alextemplet » Sat Feb 04, 2006 2:48 am

Springer:

If you believe God has His hand in it, you're denyinig a pillar of evolutionary thinking... natural selection.


No. Natural selection simply says that the environment in which an organism lives favors certain traits, so those traits are favored in the evolution of that organism. There's no reason to suppose that God didn't cause the environment to be that way, in order to cause that species to evolve. It's possible to envision that God was responsible for every step in the evolutionary process, but doing so doesn't deny natural selection. It just redefines our conception of how God works; magical "poof" is replaced by careful tinkering.

By the way, Springer, I'm sorry if this seems inapporpriate but I have to ask. Do you keep questioning my faith because you're interested to know what I believe or are you trying to get me to deny something?

Human embryos do not possess gills at any stage of development.


Yes they do. I once saw an ultrasound of my little cousin when she was still in the womb, and she had gills.

Macroevolution by natural selection rules out intelligent design, by definition.


Why? You yourself have said that God could've used evolution. So if it's possible for God to use it, why does it rule out God? That's like saying that a carpenter can use a hammer, so the existence of hammers proves that carpenters don't exist.

Creation is not "magic". Intelligent design operates within laws we don't understand. You seem to have no problem accepting abiogenesis, despite the fact that you have no clue what laws were in operation to cause self-assembly of DNA. Why is that within the realm of science and creation excluded?


You seem to be trying hard to differentiate ID and old-fashioned creationism. From what I've seen of it, ID seems to be old-fashioned creationism in disguise. The reason I say that is because both say the same thing. Both claim that life was created in a non-evolutionary manner by an intelligent designer. The only difference is that creationism calls the designer God, and ID leaves him nameless. So, I ask you, what exactly is the difference between ID and creationism?

PS - Astus, I know how you feel. I've met plenty of people who say exactly that, that belief of evolution equals disbelief of God. Some have even called me a heretic for what I believe. But that's not important.
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby Springer » Sat Feb 04, 2006 5:16 am

quote="alextemplet"

If you believe God has His hand in it, you're denyinig a pillar of evolutionary thinking... natural selection.


No. Natural selection simply says that the environment in which an organism lives favors certain traits, so those traits are favored in the evolution of that organism. There's no reason to suppose that God didn't cause the environment to be that way, in order to cause that species to evolve. It's possible to envision that God was responsible for every step in the evolutionary process, but doing so doesn't deny natural selection. It just redefines our conception of how God works; magical "poof" is replaced by careful tinkering.


Implicit in the theory of natural selection is that all specializations of nature occured without any need for divine intervention.

By the way, Springer, I'm sorry if this seems inapporpriate but I have to ask. Do you keep questioning my faith because you're interested to know what I believe or are you trying to get me to deny something?


I know that you have faith in God. All I'm suggesting is that you confess that intelligent design was required. If you believe in God, that belief must be based on some observation. I see all nature as proof of a supreme being.

Human embryos do not possess gills at any stage of development.


Yes they do. I once saw an ultrasound of my little cousin when she was still in the womb, and she had gills.


I've been trying to allow you to save face. Human embryos do not possess gills at any stage of development. This is a myth that has unfortunately been propagated in the past by some evolutionists.

Macroevolution by natural selection rules out intelligent design, by definition.


Why? You yourself have said that God could've used evolution. So if it's possible for God to use it, why does it rule out God?


I'm arguing the mechanism of evolution, i.e., natural selection, is a fallacy. Yes, God could have used evolution. If he did, then evolutionists are dead wrong by supposing that random mutations and natural selection produced the diversity of species.

A belief in evolution may not preclude a belief in God, as long as you agree that God directed the origin of species and not random chance. The theory of Evolution submits that all species evolved without any requirement of God or intelligent design.

That's like saying that a carpenter can use a hammer, so the existence of hammers proves that carpenters don't exist


Supposing that natural selection produced life on earth is analogous to suppose that a hammer could construct a building without a carpenter.


You seem to be trying hard to differentiate ID and old-fashioned creationism. From what I've seen of it, ID seems to be old-fashioned creationism in disguise. The reason I say that is because both say the same thing. Both claim that life was created in a non-evolutionary manner by an intelligent designer. The only difference is that creationism calls the designer God, and ID leaves him nameless. So, I ask you, what exactly is the difference between ID and creationism?


I think creationism implies literal Genesis. Intelligent Design does not make any committment as to the nature of God... only that nature exhibits evidence of intelligent design. You speak of intelligent design as if it has something to apologize for. What is really being argued is neither "creationism" or ID per se. The only arguments that are offered are against evolution. Therefore, all arguments are within the realm of science, if you believe evolution is.
Springer
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:20 am

Postby AstusAleator » Sat Feb 04, 2006 7:34 am

I'm not, by any means, discouraging arguments against evolution.
I was just hoping that we could clarify what entails a scientific argument, and that claiming any sort of "divine intervention" falls outside the realm of what we recognize as scientific laws at this time.
I suggest that if you want to continue "arguing" for creation/ID that you set forth parameters or laws within which your hypotheses can be tested.

I think that this thread really needs a drastic change in focus.
We should either go back to the original topic and discuss scientific ways in which it may have occured, or perhaps choose other possible scientific topics or arguments related to it.

Springer you've brought up a LOT of good points in your arguments, and unfortunately we've gotten distracted by metaphysical arguments. Lets talk about some of those topics, in detail, and try to stay scientific.

I don't think it's necessary any longer for you to state that you believe that if evolution is proved false, that ID is true. That's your belief and you're entitled to it. So how about this, line up all the issues of evolution that you can scientifically refute, and we can talk about them. I know you've brought up a lot of them already, but we haven't really spent a lot of time on them, because OTHER subjects keep popping up.
User avatar
AstusAleator
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:51 pm
Location: Oregon, USA

Postby AstusAleator » Sat Feb 04, 2006 8:19 am

This is probably highly inappropriate, but it made me laugh so now I share it with all of you.

"A comet is, of course, frozen bodies of ice and dust formed over 4.6
billion years ago---or created 6,000 years ago, depending on whether or
not you're wrong."
---Jon Stewart
What did the parasitic Candiru fish say when it finally found a host? - - "Urethra!!"
User avatar
AstusAleator
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:51 pm
Location: Oregon, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron