Login

Join for Free!
118233 members


Origins of life

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Postby Linn » Sat May 20, 2006 11:42 pm

mithrilhack wrote:http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=674042006


I totaly agree with that article
surprised?
"How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these".

~ George washington Carver
User avatar
Linn
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1735
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:53 am
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Postby alextemplet » Sun May 21, 2006 4:03 pm

Linn wrote:
mithrilhack wrote:http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=674042006


I totaly agree with that article
surprised?


I agree with it, too, but that's not surprising at all, is it?
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)

Postby bpv » Wed May 31, 2006 2:52 pm

The Darwins Evolutionary hypothesis completly relies on the excavations from the field of palentology to be proved as a theory. Darwin's conclusions with his hypothesis was that it will be proved later when the missing links are discovered.

Since the publishing of Darwins work " On the origin of species by means of natural selection" in the year 1839, no link has been found that can be considered as a transition between any two particular phylum or class. Though the palentologists claim the discovery of transitions, it seems insufficient and incredible that a single link or two can connect two particular phylum or class.

The complexity of the DNA structure or the intricacy of structure of life was purely unknown at the time of Darwin's discoveries. If known Darwin would not have attempted such a risk.

The studies in biology, palentology or allied sciences seems to concentrate only on the morphological similarities between two organism to predict their evolutionary relationship. In all the cases the multifarious information involved with the cytological and genetic factors are seen to be ignored.

The cytological and genetic factors are of great importance and plays the most important role in keeping the identity of the organism than that of the morphological characteristics. It is barely credible that huge genetic changes can take place in the evolutionary process by mere blind process. More the complexity of structure, more is the chance of error. Due to the high level of intricacy the DNA and genetic materials of all the organisms are more prone to disorder or formation of meaningless code under a blind process of mutation or natural selection.

The structure of life looks so ordered, designed, structured and planned. Anything that is so complex, so structured, so ordered and organised can never form, as a result of mere blind process having a higher chance to result in chaos.
bpv
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:06 pm


Postby Linn » Thu Jun 01, 2006 2:10 am

I am with you on the above post. :)

Side point
Did any one see the Nova Science broadcast about the recent discovery that the latest so-called missing link was a hoax. I knew it was going to be on but then I missed it. :(
"How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these".

~ George washington Carver
User avatar
Linn
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1735
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:53 am
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Postby alextemplet » Thu Jun 01, 2006 2:16 am

For some reason I feel like all of this has been said plenty of times before:

The Darwins Evolutionary hypothesis completly relies on the excavations from the field of palentology to be proved as a theory.


Paleontology certainly plays a role, but most evolutionary research focuses mainly on genetics.

no link has been found that can be considered as a transition between any two particular phylum or class.


Completely false. Ambulocetus comes to mind, as do others.

The studies in biology, palentology or allied sciences seems to concentrate only on the morphological similarities between two organism to predict their evolutionary relationship. In all the cases the multifarious information involved with the cytological and genetic factors are seen to be ignored.


Read above; most evolutionary research focuses on genetics.

The structure of life looks so ordered, designed, structured and planned. Anything that is so complex, so structured, so ordered and organised can never form, as a result of mere blind process having a higher chance to result in chaos.


Most mutation is harmful, but not all. Experiments have shown that evolution is capable of occuring at a rate several thousand times faster than the fastest transitions shown in fossils. In light of this fact, claiming that evolution is impossible is like watching a car race by at 100mph and then claiming it's impossible to build a car capable of traveling at 50mph.
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)

Postby AstusAleator » Mon Jun 05, 2006 9:22 am

Archaeopteryx can also be added to your list. Oh wait, didn't we talk about that on page 12? or maybe 18? no... 20?? 14?? 3??
Maybe we should publish this thread as a book :).
And I ditto Alex on the point that modern evolutionary theory is based very largely on genetics.
Also, Darwin's initial theory was not based on palentology but mere systematic biology (ie observation of the finches).
You say that life (genetics) has degraded over time, rather than being "refined" into more "complex" systems. Then you go on to say that life is so incredibly complex and perfectly balanced that it couldn't have been arranged by "blind force".
*sigh*
I'm not going to go through another explanation of the mechanism of adaptation, but suffice it to say that analogies such as the "blind watchmaker" or "throwing puzzles in the air" are nothing but straw-man arguments. Read the past 21 pages to find out why. You're just re-voicing irreducible complexity and the supposed 2nd law issue, which have been addressed already.
You're entitled to your opinion, as we all are, but if you're going to argue, or start stating things as fact, then you might want to read over the thread before posting, and submit documentation with factual statements.
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

Postby Linn » Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:29 pm

Lets not start those up again
Its also been mentioned many times about how those
"so-called" missing links are speculative and not proven.

:lol: :)
"How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these".

~ George washington Carver
User avatar
Linn
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1735
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:53 am
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Postby alextemplet » Mon Jun 05, 2006 4:45 pm

Do you think we'll ever finish arguing in here?
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)

Postby AstusAleator » Mon Jun 05, 2006 11:16 pm

nah...
When we get too tired to post in here anymore, others will pick the "arguments" up.
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

Postby Linn » Tue Jun 06, 2006 3:09 am

I would rather imagine that we are just all trying to figure it out: what is the truth. That is what science is: knowledge, learning, figuring it all out.

Debate is good it keeps scientists looking and figuring and prooving or disprooving.
"How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these".

~ George washington Carver
User avatar
Linn
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1735
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:53 am
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Postby David George » Tue Jun 06, 2006 12:42 pm

Do you think we'll ever finish arguing in here?

I don't think so not until the forum has all David or all Linn or all Alex or all Astus.I have to admit But I accept with Linn's statement for 100%.
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution"
-Theodosius Dobzhansky
User avatar
David George
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:48 pm
Location: India [place where religion rules people]

Can the Information be Ignored?

Postby bpv » Fri Jun 09, 2006 7:13 pm

Certainly mutations do produce some novel genetic changes but a mutation has never been known to add information to an already complex genetic system. As the field of genetics has advanced to the present position, we today know that all the genetic information in the organism's body is coded with complex genetic combinations. All the bodily manifestations, structure, function and behavior are the result of the Genetic codes.

Any minute change that can take place in the body structure of an organism can be only as a result of numerous genetic recombinations in the information system. For the acquisition of a particular characteristic or the formation of an organ (adaptation) or to enable the existing organ to perform new function (exaptation); a drastic change needs to occur in the genes or the genetic material. Additional information is needed to be added to the existing genetic code for the above sort of acquisition of characteristic. The question arises on which was formed first? The information or the characteristics. The study in the genetics itself reveals that each characteristic is the result of genetic information. This means for an evolution to occur the information must be formed first. The question again arises on how, specific genetic information were formed for the development of specialized organs like heart, lungs, liver, kidneys and the master controller brain.

Any student of natural science can understand, and knows very well that a variation in the order of the genetic material may result in a change in the meaning of information and
the coded information is specific to each particular organism. A minor change in the chain of codes can never lead to the evolution of a species but rather a focused change must take place in the whole information system for a desired modification to take place in the organism’s body structure. As discussed the probability of forming an ordered structure as result of recombination without intelligence is nearly equal to zero, especially when the change is focused towards a desired result.

The same phenomenon is found in all the organisms but with different order. Imagine the genetic change that has to take place in an organism to modify its external or internal structure. Or how much information is required to form a code to develop the forelimbs into feathers, the fins into fore limbs, irrational - instinctive organism to a rational - creative one. What can be the source of information? Is the impulse from the nature enough to create meaningful directed information?

A minimum reasoning is enough to guess the intelligence of the car maker who has designed the car capable of racing at a speed of 100 or 200 miles per hour. Especially when there is no chance of such an efficient motor vehicle be created in a factory by chance or without the application of expert engineering principles.

Darwinism never supports changes that take place thousand of times faster to skip links but the accumulation of variations. The missing links doesn’t mean that the evolution has taken place thousands of time faster. If has taken place faster it cannot be explained in evolution but punctuated equilibrium. Neither the former nor the latter has enough support from genetics, considering the information criteria.

The cranial endocast studies conducted in Archaeopteryx fossil revealed that it was a completely developed Ave, fully capable of flight and well developed avian model circulatory and nervous system.

Coelacanth that was considered to be a link between the Pisces and Amphibians was explained as extinct by evolutionists till 1938 when the fisherman caught it species (Latimeria chalumnae) from the African marine waters. The studies on the live specimen had made all contradictions with the pre-conceptions and revealed having no relationship with the amphibians and were found to be a complete Pisces.

The Appendix that was considered to be vestigial is found to have lymphatic tissue and helps control the bacteria entering the intestine. Suppose the many so called vestigial examples are confirmed, they can never be a support to evolution but devolution.

The above cited are only few, among the many contradictions to the paleontological and physiological studies for the confirmation of evolution. What evolutionary explanation can we give to the multifarious and unique specimens of life, and the formation of intricate meaningful information coded in them. Science obviously involves observation and experiment but I think ultimately a reasoned analysis without bias must be necessary to review what truth is.
bpv
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:06 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests