lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: Evolution - and how we know it's right
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 05-06-2006, 04:17 AM   #121
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royal Guardian
i haven't read all the thread, it will take to long, but please, tell me why you think that evolution is the right thought action. i would like to know.
Well, like TK said, if you really wanted the answer to that you should've just read the thread...it's been answered...

But if you want to even quicker version than Samuel Dravis proposed, we believe in evolution because evolution is right. As near as we can tell, from all the tests, and all the observations, and all the evidence: evolution happened, is happening, and will continue to happen. There is no argument against it that holds up to scrutiny and testing. It's what makes sense, and it's what we can see.



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-08-2006, 09:19 AM   #122
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
And every new scientific discovery, genetic discovery, archeological discovery, geographic discovery etc.. re-enforces the theory of evolution.

If anything was likely to disprove evolution it was the recent opening up of genetics and our ability to understand them - but instead it confirmed everything we had previously thought.



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-17-2006, 12:03 PM   #123
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,263
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
...
One of them recently remarked to me that it is blasphemous, in his opinion, for creationists to continually assert that the Earth cannot be as old as science has discovered or that God cannot set into motion, over 13 billion years ago, the process that produced the evolutionary mechanism that science has discovered. "How dare they," my friend exclaims quite loudly, "pretend to know what God's limitations are and attempt to limit His ability to create!"
...
How very well said. I am wondering about this since I know there is something like religion. ;


Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-15-2006, 12:17 PM   #124
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
Another discovery showing the way eveolution works in greater detail. These seem to be coming pretty fast right now, with lots of major breakthroughs in filling in the blanks about how evolution works.

Quote:
Butterfly effect: New species hatches in lab

The creation of a new species, something that scientific orthodoxy says should take thousands of years of genetic isolation has been achieved in the lab in just three months.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/st...797814,00.html

When was the last major breakthrough that challenged evolution, or supported ID?



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-15-2006, 12:41 PM   #125
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
For those interested, here's a link to one of the tables from the Nature article: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...e04738_F2.html

Here's the Editor's Summary in Nature, but the article itself requires subscription, so I'll offer a couple of quotes from Mavarez et al (2006):

Quote:
The butterfly species Heliconius heurippa is known to have an intermediate morphology and a hybrid genome (Salazar et al 2005), and we have recreated its intermediate wing colour and pattern through laboratory crosses between H. melpomene, H. cydno and their F1 hybrids. We then used mate preference experiments to show that the phenotype of H. heurippa reproductively isolates it from both parental species. There is strong assortative mating between all three species, and in H. heurippa the wing pattern and colour elements derived from H. melpomene and H. cydno are both critical for mate recognition by males.
Quote:
Our study provides the first experimental demonstration of a hybrid trait generating reproductive isolation between animal species, and the first example of a hybrid trait causing pre-mating isolation through assortative mating.
References

Mavarez, J. et al (2006). Speciation by hybridization in Heliconius butterflies. Nature, 441, 868-871.

Salazar, C. A. et al. (2005). Hybrid incompatibility is consistent with a hybrid origin of Heliconius heurippa Hewitson from its close relatives, Heliconius cydno Doubleday and Heliconius melpomene Linnaeus. J. Evol. Biol. 18, 247–256



A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-15-2006, 09:54 PM   #126
The Source
Rest In Peace
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,304
Contest winner - Modding 
I am entering into this conversation late in the game.

I will start with: I am a Catholic (Christian). In order to answer the main question presented, there has to be a balance between science and religion. My aunt is a solidified Born Again Christian, and we have these legnthly discussions about Science vrs. History vrs. Theology vrs. Religion. Unfortunately, she is an extrodinary fundamentalist.

I believe that Genusis is the story of evolution, which science can only support through testing hypothesis. God created the universe. After mankind reached a level of consciousness, they discovered the hidiousness of sin and pain. Instead of looking at 'God created the Earth in six days, and then he rested on the seventh.', I believe God created the Earth in a much longer period of time.

My Definition of Adam and Eve:
Adam and Eve symbolize the first two humanbeings who acheived full conscienceness. They represent the moment when mankind went from a nieve state into a more knowledgeable being. (Apple symbolizes the knowledge they acheived.) However, humanity had to evolve into this more knowledgable state. God, through his patience and wisdom, allowed humanity to progress from a primitive anemo-acids (sp?) into Adam and Eve. Through our study of science, we are learning the fundamentals of how mankind went from a one celled organism into a complex biological being.

My 'Let there Be Light' Definition:
When God said, "Let There Be Light", this symbolizes the beginning of creationism and evolution. The light represents what science calls the 'Big Bang'. Before the universe existed, there was absolutly nothing. God in his infinite wisdom and patience, pushed together these unknown elements to give birth to the galaxy. Sience will only give us a glimpse of his process. I do believe that there are certain things that even God will prevent mankind from finding out. However, mankind will eventually findout significant processes, but we will never truely understand the unknown (Supernatural) process.

Bringing It All Together:
God -> Created evolution through his wisdom and patience. The supernatural process.

Mankind -> Creates a scientific/biological understanding of what he has done.

Science -> Is a testing of theories and hypothesis, which our curious species needs inorder to find cures for health issues. Without science involved, we will not be able to find ansers to the questions 'What If" or "How".

Evolution -> Is the process that God pushed forward, which caused biological changes to occur. These biological changes allowed our species to adapt to our environment. Sience will only help us understand what biological changes he allowed to occur. At the end, this will only benifit mankind.

Science vrs. Religion Conundrum:
Science put up a restraining order on religion, and religion put up a restraining order on science. This will prevent mankind from excepting our Lord the Father and from growing as a human species. Why? This is a topic for another thread and time.



R.I.P. to 'The Source' and 'MacCorp'
2004-2008
The Source is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-21-2006, 10:23 PM   #127
Point Man
Seeker of Truth
 
Point Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The People's Palace
Posts: 612
I have to wonder why the limit was placed on not discussing origin of the universe. That is where the real question is. Even though some of the older evidence for evolution is questionable at best and dishonest at worst, to dispute that species adapt to changing conditions is to deny reality. However, no theory of evolution can answer the question of where matter came from. To say that atoms somehow organized themselves into complex molecules in violation of the Law of Entropy takes at least as much faith as saying God created the universe.


Show me a man who is twenty and not a liberal, and I will show you a man with no heart.
Show me a man who is forty and not a conservative, and I will show you a man with no brain.

Point Man is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-21-2006, 10:39 PM   #128
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Quote:
However, no theory of evolution can answer the question of where matter came from.
Nor is that, with all due respect, the "job" of the theory of evolution. Its task is to explain how the existing organism developed into what they are today.

Quote:
To say that atoms somehow organized themselves into complex molecules in violation of the Law of Entropy takes at least as much faith as saying God created the universe.
Perhaps so (except the enthropy part - the law of enthropy does not disprove evolution, contrary to popular belief). But again, that's... What, abio-genesis (?), not evolution.

Oh, and welcome aboard!

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-22-2006, 12:27 AM   #129
Point Man
Seeker of Truth
 
Point Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The People's Palace
Posts: 612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Nor is that, with all due respect, the "job" of the theory of evolution. Its task is to explain how the existing organism developed into what they are today.
Maybe so. Let's skip forward and postulate matter always existed (a statement of faith, not of science). How then do we get from atoms to complex molecules to cells to organisms? In my entire time as a microbiology major at college, I never found any empirical evidence to support that path. It just plain violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Quote:
the law of enthropy does not disprove evolution, contrary to popular belief).
It sure makes a compelling argument, though. Are you willing to say that the Law of Entropy applies now, but it did not apply billions of years ago?

Quote:
Oh, and welcome aboard!
Thanks! I take it as my duty to help people think about what they choose to believe. I put my faith in Creation. Others may put their faith in evoluton, but I hope to make them realize their belief system takes just as much faith as mine.


Show me a man who is twenty and not a liberal, and I will show you a man with no heart.
Show me a man who is forty and not a conservative, and I will show you a man with no brain.

Point Man is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-22-2006, 12:33 AM   #130
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
www.talkorigins.org/FAQ:
Quote:
Question: Doesn't evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics? After all, order cannot come from disorder.
Answer: Evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. Order emerges from disorder all the time. Snowflakes form, trees grow, and embryos develop, etc. [...]
The thermodynamics argument is a common one, but it's nothing more than a myth.


Last edited by Dagobahn Eagle; 12-12-2006 at 05:59 PM.
Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-22-2006, 02:03 AM   #131
Point Man
Seeker of Truth
 
Point Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The People's Palace
Posts: 612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
www.talkorigins.org/FAQ:


The thermodynamics argument is a common one, but it's nothing more than a myth.
Formation of snowflakes does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics because they form in an open system and the snowflakes are disordered. They do not conglomerate into snowmen; they remain individual snowflakes. Check Question #4

Tree growth and embryonic development do not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics because the organism expends energy.

How did random atoms acquire the energy to form molecules, complex molecules, complex organic molecules, cells, tissues, and then organisms? And please don't say it was lightning striking a primordial soup in a reducing atmosphere. I did not buy it as a college freshman, and I do not buy it now.


Show me a man who is twenty and not a liberal, and I will show you a man with no heart.
Show me a man who is forty and not a conservative, and I will show you a man with no brain.

Point Man is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-22-2006, 07:27 AM   #132
ShadowTemplar
Heathen
 
ShadowTemplar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo fett 66
I have to wonder why the limit was placed on not discussing origin of the universe.
Because that has jack squat to do with the subject of the thread, which is biological evolution. You want to discuss cosmology? Fine with me. Start another thread. You want to discuss chemical abiogenesis? Fine with me. In another thread.

Limiting the discussion solely to biological evolution is simply a matter of limiting the subject of a single thread to something almost manageable, so that questions in one area don't get lost in replies to questions about another area.

And, contrary to what you imply, the distinction actually made is not an arbitrary one. We know that life exists. How it came about is immaterial to the ToE. We know that the Earth existed well before life arose. How the Earth came to be is immaterial to the question of how life arose (OK, not quite - it can shed some interesting light on the question).

So the distinction is quite well grounded in the different questions posed by those different phases. Not to mention the fact that ToE is primarily biological and biochemical, while chemical abiogenesis is primarily chemical, and cosmology is an astrophysical dicipline. It would be mightily unreasonable to expect the same commenters to cover such a wide range of fields.

Quote:
Even though some of the older evidence for evolution is questionable at best and dishonest at worst,
Dishonest? Which parts? Questionable-but-not-dishonest? Which parts?

Quote:
However, no theory of evolution can answer the question of where matter came from.
That being because ToE does not attempt to explain that. ToE explains what happened on this planet after the first life was formed. The formation of said life - much less the formation of the planet - is irrelevant.

Quote:
To say that atoms somehow organized themselves into complex molecules in violation of the Law of Entropy
Pray tell, what does 2LoT actually say?

[Answer]

There is one subtle error in the essay.

I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to find it.

Next, pray tell, do chemists and biochemists who routinely synthezise complex molecules violate 2LoT in their daily work?

Oh, and while we're on the subject of thermodynamics, what do the other three laws of thermodynamics say?

For a more thorough understanding of how 2LoT (and Newtonian dynamics) work, you could visit the Museum of Unworkable Devices.

Quote:
Let's skip forward and postulate matter always existed (a statement of faith, not of science).
First of all, it's not necessary to postulate that matter has 'always' existed. Secondly, the formation of matter is hardly an issue of faith. Astrophysics have the timeline pretty much pat down (although I am personaly in no position to evaluate the soundness of their arguments), and as we speak, investigation into the nature of matter itself is underway at the Centre for European Nuclear Research near Geneva, Switzerland.

Quote:
How then do we get from atoms to complex molecules
Sorry, you'll need to find both a chemist, and another thread if you want an answer to that question. This link provides part of the answer, but, AFAIK, the whole story has yet to be determined.

Quote:
to cells
Again, the picture is, AFAIK, incomplete, but RNA has been formed using common chemicals. Lipids - the stuff that makes up our cell membranes - spontaneously forms into closed membranes - that's the trick that makes soap work. And you can probably find more information if you ask a biochemist.

Quote:
to organisms?
Once you have a living cell, you have an organism. If you mean multicellular organism, part of the story can be found here.

Quote:
In my entire time as a microbiology major at college, I never found any empirical evidence to support that path.
Argument from personal incredulity.

Quote:
It just plain violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
I reiterate my questions:

Quote:
Pray tell, what does 2LoT actually say?

Next, pray tell, do chemists and biochemists who routinely synthezise complex molecules violate 2LoT in their daily work?

Oh, and while we're on the subject of thermodynamics, what do the other three laws of thermodynamics say?
Quote:
It sure makes a compelling argument, though. Are you willing to say that the Law of Entropy applies now, but it did not apply billions of years ago?
I reiterate my questions from above:

Quote:
Pray tell, what does 2LoT actually say?

Next, pray tell, do chemists and biochemists who routinely synthezise complex molecules violate 2LoT in their daily work?

Oh, and while we're on the subject of thermodynamics, what do the other three laws of thermodynamics say?
Quote:
Formation of snowflakes does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics because they form in an open system
Well, so does life... - or, rather, it forms in a closed, but not isolated system, which is rather more to the point.

Quote:
and the snowflakes are disordered.
Pray tell, what relevance does 'disorder' have w.r.t. thermodynamics?

Quote:
They do not conglomerate into snowmen; they remain individual snowflakes.
But they're still just fruitflies. Sorry, cheap shot, but I couldn't resist...

The point here is not that the snowflakes don't form into snowmen. The point is that the snowflakes have lower enthropy than the water vapour from which they are formed. This is compensated for by the fact that during their formation, they have released energy to their surroundings, thus increasing the enthropy of the rest of the world. Which brings us to your reference:

Quote:
A forming snowflake is an open system. There is mass transfer across the boundary.
More to the point, there's an energy transfer. You can easily design an experimental setup in which the freezing water is a closed system - but it won't freeze unless there's an energy transfer.

Quote:
If snowflake formation causes a reduction in the entropy of the snowflake, then, by the second law, the entropy change of the surroundings must increase.
That's precisely the point. Now, try to apply this to biological systems.

Quote:
What about the order of the snowflake? A snowflake indeed appears to have a high degree of order, but remember, we are talking about ordered energy. Ordered energy is energy that is available to do work.
Feh. Now he's confusing enthropy and free energy. A snowflake as a lower enthropy than gaseous water. Inasmuch as enthropy translates to disorder (an analogy, by the way, that is far from perfect), the snowflake could be said to have a higher degree of order. Why the author feels compelled to bring up the free energy of the snowflake is something I fail to understand.

Quote:
Once a snowflake forms, it doesn't do any work,
Well, technically no bodies do any work. Forces do work. But, contrary to the statement by your source, falling snowflakes do indeed apply forces to their environment, and those forces do indeed do work. Further, if you collect an abundance of snowflakes in a basket, and pour them over a treadmill, you will see that snowflakes can indeed contain free energy...

And, frankly, I fail to see any sense in the rest of the article.

Quote:
Tree growth and embryonic development do not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics because the organism expends energy.
You're confusing energy and free energy.

Quote:
How did random atoms acquire the [free] energy to form molecules, complex molecules, complex organic molecules, cells, tissues, and then organisms?
Same place they do today: Old man Sol. Not to mention the fact that in an anoxic environment, it will be energetically favorable for Hydrogen and Nitrogen - two of the most common compounds in the universe - to form Methane - a compound that contains more free energy than CO2 and water.

Quote:
And please don't say it was lightning striking a primordial soup in a reducing atmosphere. I did not buy it as a college freshman, and I do not buy it now.
Howsabout volcanic outgassing then?


Last edited by ShadowTemplar; 06-22-2006 at 09:08 AM.
ShadowTemplar is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-01-2006, 10:33 PM   #133
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
http://www.framestore-cfc.com/commer...339_050_qt.mov
seems to explain it quite well. But you might have to play it backwards.



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-17-2006, 09:56 AM   #134
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
God, am I good!

I managed, throught extra-ordinary patience and superb coping skills, to suffer my way through this speech rant by Dr. Kent Hovind (note that he is not a doctor in the field of biology).
2 1/2 hours of Creationist propaganda! Or, in other words, 2 1/2 hours of idiocy. Although, of course, he goes from evolution to conspiracy theories about communism, the NWO, and NRA-style gun-teasing pretty soon. "If you think Timothy McVeigh was behind blowing up the Oklahoma City Building, you're really duped".

Fair enough that he realizes that the "anti-terrorist" measures like the PATRIOT ACT are dangerous, but come on...

Either way, it's official: I've got patience with morons! But holy ****, watching through it wasn't easy. They should introduce it as a torture tool at Guantanamo.

In reply to post above (which was not moronic):
Quote:
Formation of snowflakes does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics because they form in an open system and the snowflakes are disordered.
Snow flakes are certainly orderly.

Vapour that snow flakes come from:


Snow flake:

It looks very orderly to me. Geometric and symmetric both.

Quote:
They do not conglomerate into snowmen; they remain individual snowflakes.
Of course not. But the disorder of the vapour leads to the order of the snow-flake.


Last edited by Dagobahn Eagle; 08-17-2006 at 11:34 AM.
Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-17-2006, 11:23 AM   #135
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
Good grief.. i think i'd rather sit through 2 1/2 hours of NWO wrestling...
..what is he a doctor of?



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-17-2006, 11:31 AM   #136
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
He has a bachelor's in religious education from an unaccredited university, and his master's and doctorate are from a diploma mill. Not really hard to understand why his dissertation is held under lock and key. Probably it's gibberish.


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-17-2006, 12:04 PM   #137
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
FAQ on Kent Hovind.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-10-2006, 04:06 PM   #138
Nedak
Beelzebozo
 
Nedak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,836
LucasCast Jingle Composer Forum Veteran Hot Topic Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by StaffSaberist
What I was saying was that the vast majority of world populace does not believe in evolution.
I disagree. I think that a vast majority of the world doesn’t even know what Evolution is, and/or are not willing to open their minds to learn, and to try and comprehend Evolution. Most who don't believe in Evolution are narrow minded, and unwilling to learn outside of their Christian, Catholic, and other beliefs.

Last edited by Nedak; 09-10-2006 at 06:23 PM.
Nedak is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-18-2006, 04:55 PM   #139
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
han sala:
I disagree. I think that a vast majority of the world doesn’t even know what Evolution is, and/or are not willing to open their minds to learn, and to try and comprehend Evolution. Most who don't believe in Evolution are narrow minded, and unwilling to learn outside of their Christian, Catholic, and other beliefs.
-------------------------------------------------------

I take it that you're indicting individuals here, not necessarily belief systems? BWIM that surely you're not implying that all Catholics, for instance, reject ToE out of hand? Last I heard, at least one of the 20thC popes stated that ToE and belief in God were not in fact mutually exclusive.

But the fact also remains that until the fabled missing link between man and ape is found, ToE is going to be a hard sell as anything other than a theory to most people. The inconvenient fact is that many people try to replace the concept of God with evolution as the explanation of where we came from all along. Niether idea is mutually exclusive. I daresay that if hardcore evoultionists didn't try to seperate God from evolution, they might be more widely accepted by most people.
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-19-2006, 01:52 AM   #140
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
But the fact also remains that until the fabled missing link between man and ape is found, ToE is going to be a hard sell as anything other than a theory to most people.
That "fact" only remains in the minds of the undereducated. The link between man and ape is genetic and the genetic distances between humans and other apes (man *is* an ape) is very much known. If you were referring to the fallacious notion that the ancestor of Homo sapiens is an "ape," and the "missing link" you're referring to is between them, I feel compelled to point out that man and apes evolved from a common species. The "missing links" are many and also well known. How many australopithecines are necessary before the morphological trends from earlier species are clear enough for people to accept?

Moreover, "anything other than a theory" is yet another fallacy that I've addressed at least once in this thread. Theories can contain laws, facts and tested hypotheses. Each of which are present in the "theory of evolution." Evolution is a fact. It really happened.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
The inconvenient fact is that many people try to replace the concept of God with evolution as the explanation of where we came from all along. Niether idea is mutually exclusive. I daresay that if hardcore evoultionists didn't try to seperate God from evolution, they might be more widely accepted by most people.
God simply isn't a factor. If there is a god, it would be a truly incompetent one that couldn't have set into motion the creation of the universe using the laws of physics that are measurable and observable. Evolution doesn't take into consideration a god simply because a god is a supernatural/magical concept and thus not testable. It is therefore, discarded as a hypothesis as god doesn't matter. There's no replacement, it simply has no place in a scientific perspective, so why bother with it? Science cannot be pinned down to a single religious cult, it operates independently. Otherwise there would be as many different scientific methods as there were worldviews, religions and cults -each with a different god to interject into their explanations of how the world works.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-19-2006, 04:00 AM   #141
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Perhaps I should have said as anything other than an unsubstantiated theory. You don't have to try to sell me, so to speak, on the concept of evoultion. I accept that it is the best theory we have for how life as developed on this planet. Where people like you (no, I'm not actually channeling Ross Perot here) have a problem is that you state things as fact that you don't really know are fact. We don't really know if there's a god or not, but absence of proof is not proof of absence. Maybe God is real and maybe he's just a collective myth. What you're saying isn't only that we can't factor a supernatural, untestable variable into the equation, but that that variable doesn't even exist. Basically, what you CAN say is that you think life DEVELOPED along these lines (ie evolution), but that you don't know what is the ultimate source of the material from whence it arose. That is more logical than simply saying something doesn't exist because you can't measure it.
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-19-2006, 09:40 AM   #142
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Where people like you (no, I'm not actually channeling Ross Perot here) have a problem is that you state things as fact that you don't really know are fact.
Please quote me on which "facts" I've misrepresented as so. I'll be happy to revise my position on them should I be wrong.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-19-2006, 10:09 AM   #143
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Quite simply, you claim to KNOW that God doesn't exist, but then admit in another thread that you can't actually test that hypothesis. So, if you can't really test whether god exists or not, you can't prove he doesn't. That's the only place I'm faulting you. Besides, if you KNOW God doesn't really exist, you'd be an atheist and not an "agnostic-atheist".
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-19-2006, 10:31 AM   #144
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Perhaps you could quote the passage and include the post # where I stated I know god doesn't exist so I can correct this blatant oversight.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-19-2006, 06:35 PM   #145
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
In all fairness, I didn't quote you. However, also in the interest of fair play I'll admit that I was reduced to inferring your position from having read through many of your posts. After having reread many of your posts and reading others I hadn't yet seen, I don't think it's unfair to conclude from your often dismissive comments about religion as little other than superstitition and it's believers as delusional, that you think the nonexistence of God (or any god for that matter) is in actuality a fact. I do agree in part with some of your comments regarding the nature of threads like this one that if one is going to argue vs evolution, they shouldn't just resort to the knee jerk position that God created the universe and therefore evolution is merely bs.

While that shot in one of the threads about you being a monkeyboy could be taken as a kind of cheap shot, I think you're well aware that he was coyly attacking your belief in evoultion. Still, colorful potshots like that, so long as someone doesn't start reducing themselves to actually cursing you or deriding your intellect repeatedly, kind of make the threads a little more interesting to read and a little less dry to have to digest.

BTW, I've also read your caveats about your position on god (ie He doesn't really exist unless He's willing to prove it to me personally..dead relative, stop the earth rotating and so on). But you'll have to pardon me (or not, I s'pose) if they don't ring a little hollow. Kind of like saying you respect blank (women, blacks, anything really) but then talk trash about them right after uttering the first part of the statement. Still, having said that, you come across as more of a hardcore missouri style agnostic (ie show me or begone) than an athiest. In spite of your citing a thelogian to somehow validate your position on agnostic atheism, his quote doesn't change the meaning of the words and they do conflict. B/c what you're really saying isn't that you don't believe in God, just you don't believe YET. That's basically an agnostic.
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-20-2006, 08:09 AM   #146
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,263
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
I do agree in part with some of your comments regarding the nature of threads like this one that if one is going to argue vs evolution, they shouldn't just resort to the knee jerk position that God created the universe and therefore evolution is merely bs.
I fail to see why there seems to be a lack of people supporting the idea that God created evolution.

I mean, they claim him to be potent enough to create the world and life and literally *everything*, including the possibiliy of building jet engines, spaceships, a-bombs, the act of murder and child molesting. These are all things which are all perfectly fine and considered as kind of "made by God", why the heck should it be impossible that he also created evolution to ensure that life exists in it's rich variety it does and he doesn't has to do a thing about it.

Maybe he created other worlds before, and got sick of having to do it all on it's own for every lifeform. With evolution he just needed to say "manky slime go here" and "teenie weenie poopy loopy smally pally cell pop up there" and ka-poof! -- fishes, bees, trees, eggs, beavers, humans and french canadians all over the place in no time at all. It's a huge difference if you write a program using assembler or a high level language, so to say, but in the end both codes end up as the same binary gibberish which appears to be the only thing average processors are willingly to work with. Hey, possible that the Bible is not up to date to the version of our universe, someone should go and download the actual one.


Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-20-2006, 07:23 PM   #147
Jae Onasi
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem
 
Jae Onasi's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,916
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
I fail to see why there seems to be a lack of people supporting the idea that God created evolution.
I don't object to this at all--I actually have some difficulty with the science of the very literal creationists.

I think it's entirely possible He guided it all along in a manner consistent with evolution. The only difference is that when you get down to the point of the creation of the very first life form, I can't believe that it happened by chance. It's so astronomically small that I find it takes more faith to believe in pure chance than God putting it together.


From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Read The Adventures of Jolee Bindo and see the amazing Peep Surgery
Story WIP: The Dragonfighters
My blog: Confessions of a Geeky Mom--Latest post: Security Alerts!
Love Star Trek AND gaming? Check out Lotus Fleet.

Jae Onasi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-20-2006, 09:56 PM   #148
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
I think it's entirely possible He guided it all along in a manner consistent with evolution.
With that sort of mindset, there is no material difference whether a god exists to drive evolution or not. I think quite a lot of people would find that acceptable.

Quote:
The only difference is that when you get down to the point of the creation of the very first life form, I can't believe that it happened by chance. It's so astronomically small that I find it takes more faith to believe in pure chance than God putting it together.
Under such incredibly long, absolutely massive timescales it becomes a little more credible. Still, as you did with evolution, you can say that god started it (i.e., abiogenesis, which is not evolution per se). And what would be the difference? None, save the way you percieve it.

I'm curious, at what point would you say, "This IS what god did, it couldn't happen otherwise?" Is there such a point for you?


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-23-2006, 08:58 AM   #149
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,263
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
The only difference is that when you get down to the point of the creation of the very first life form, I can't believe that it happened by chance. It's so astronomically small that I find it takes more faith to believe in pure chance than God putting it together.
Well, I cannot deny that possibility. But I think that, according to my understanding of things, the chances that a being put up life per fingersnap is 1 against uncountable "by chance events" in the chaotic system "planet Earth". So the chance is way more bigger for random creation of life. To me this is not faith, it's math. Again, who knows how God did it?

I really doubt life was simply put together. I don't think there was a single first "lifeform". I like the idea that the basics of life "died" a hundred billion deaths before there finally was anything looking real life-ish. And even then, it didn't survive, reproduce, whatever. Life started as what it still is, one big cluster of tons of chemical reactions (or in the case of cells, not that big).

Also, I found one question to be quite interesting: Is God a lifeform, too?

If so, how can God, as form of life, create life itself? Did he create his own existance as lifeform? I would find that hard to believe and logical quite impossible.

And if he's not a lifeform (this appears to me the only valid possbility in case he literally *created* life), then why impersonate him as "human" (or vice versa, humans after his image), because he is not even "life"? That seems somewhat contradicitve.

However, what I know is, that one lifeform can provide the environment for another to exist. One example for this is something humans call a zoo. A bigger and more complex, more random version of this would be a wildpark. (I do not deny non-lifeforms to be able to do so too )

So, regardless of God being a lifeform or not, he might just have created anything needed for life to occur; a huuuuuuuge universe (read: a very large, progressive and even more complex wildpark), large enough, to have a massive amount of random events, so that in the end life could (or even must) happen by chance.

In essence, God could have created nothing but the universe (or caused the universe to happen) and with that caused life to happen by chance. Even more, in this case, it'd be interpretable true to say, God is life, God is all around, God created whatever, .. you get the point.


Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-23-2006, 12:56 PM   #150
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
I can't believe that it happened by chance. It's so astronomically small that I find it takes more faith to believe in pure chance than God putting it together.
Not if you have an understanding of probability and apply this to some really big numbers. How many "chances" did the universe have? How many Little Fizzles were there before the Big Bang banged? How many stars orbiting how many galactic centers have how many planets with the right conditions.

We assume that because ours is the planet with life that we were meant to be alive. The failed attempts at life in the universe could be on the order of 10 to the 23 zeros. Or it could be 5. The situation is like the lotto winner: an "astronomically small" chance of winning, but for the winner it seems like "fate." Bollucks. Someone had to win. The same could be true with the universe and we should use n=1 when deciding the probability that life could emerge from a universe.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-23-2006, 02:09 PM   #151
Windu Chi
Banned
 
Windu Chi's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Getting revenge on that traitor, Anakin.
Posts: 882
Lightbulb Evolution: My Thoughts

I believe evolution is right in its theory of species changing properties in relation to the Earth's climate change.
The similaries of life's properties in the present to the distance past life is so apparent that some people have to be brain dead to say, that it is nothing but errors in the data concerning its facts about how life has change over millions of years in relation to Earth's climate change.
Of course the alternative is religion interpetations of how life to day come to be over time.
Which is of course preposterous for a scientist using logic and the scientific method.
The explaination they give is from their religious texts which of course can't be corroborated because scientists can't disscuss it with their god or gods.
With Christianity being the major opponent to evolution.

I don't hear no reports of Buddhism and Hinduism religions complaining.
If there are reports of any other religions let me know about if I was misinform.
I don't make it my bussiness to know of all the world's religions.


The scientific method is a system of logical rules navigation that teach us how to be objective.
It teaches us how not to depend on emotions, bias attitudes or not to have the corrupting influence of others controlling our decision making on testing arguments.
While using the scientfic method for testing the vality of evolution, they have gather lots of convincing evidence to try to quail the skeptics doubt.
The bias of some religious skeptics will never allow them to accept the damning truth of the science.
The corruption of some people in some religions like Christianity for example, try to influence others of their beliefs, that if others don't change their belief in not favoring their religion's belief that they will suffer in hell.
This is very apparent! In some cases!
They don't use the scientific method, or logic for that matter.
Their emotions have taken over to influence their reasoning.
Some of them! In my opinion some of them have the fear that they will be banish to hell if they accepts evolution's interpretation.
Well, thats where some of their religious peers would have imprinted in their minds.
Their is no way, in my opinion to convince them of evolution validity if they have fear influencing their decision making.
Of course there are people who is not going to accept evolution until they have almost a 100% certainity.

The understanding of evolution is incomplete because the simple fact we only have the evidence of evolution happening on Earth.
I am not saying we need to explore the galaxy or universe to accept evolution validity.
As far as the present is concerned the evidence of evolution on Earth is valid.
But there is still a galaxy, universe and other possible infinite universes in existence left to explore.
Of course you can say, we will never have a finish definition of the evolution process with that statement said.
But the science of biology is based on life here, we have no idea of what life can evolve into elsewhere in the universe or in the rest of existance.
Until we aleast start exploring the galaxy our understanding of evolution will remain incomplete to say the least.

Last edited by windu6; 10-23-2006 at 02:34 PM.
Windu Chi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-23-2006, 02:44 PM   #152
Jae Onasi
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem
 
Jae Onasi's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,916
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
We assume that because ours is the planet with life that we were meant to be alive. The failed attempts at life in the universe could be on the order of 10 to the 23 zeros. Or it could be 5. The situation is like the lotto winner: an "astronomically small" chance of winning, but for the winner it seems like "fate." Bollucks. Someone had to win. The same could be true with the universe and we should use n=1 when deciding the probability that life could emerge from a universe.
Lottery--if they don't pick anyone's number, no one wins.... Which is why I generally don't play unless the dollar amount is huge, and even then I consider it my 'donation' to the states' general funds.

We're working within the limits of the biochemistry and specific science on our own planet, so the number of attempts on other planets is irrelevant. Silicon-based life may have been feasible on another planet, but not on this one, for instance.

Sure, the very first choice out of 10^40,000 could be the right one, statistically speaking, but the likelihood is so minute you may as well say zero for all intents and purposes, and it's certainly well beyond the range of statistical significance. Even if you take into account billions of years and billions of chances, you're still looking at one chance in 10^39,888--still way too small a chance for me to be comfortable saying 'it just happened all by itself.'

Of course, none of us is ever really going to know since we can't go back to that point in time to find out for sure.


From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Read The Adventures of Jolee Bindo and see the amazing Peep Surgery
Story WIP: The Dragonfighters
My blog: Confessions of a Geeky Mom--Latest post: Security Alerts!
Love Star Trek AND gaming? Check out Lotus Fleet.

Jae Onasi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-23-2006, 02:59 PM   #153
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
We're working within the limits of the biochemistry and specific science on our own planet, so the number of attempts on other planets is irrelevant. Silicon-based life may have been feasible on another planet, but not on this one, for instance.
Jae, we're talking about the possibility of life arising anywhere, from anything. Doesn't matter if it's on another planet, made from silicon, or whatever. Sure, it may have a very small chance on any particular planet - but that's not the only planet that process is happening on. Like Skinwalker said, "How many stars orbiting how many galactic centers have how many planets with the right conditions[?]"

Quote:
Of course, none of us is ever really going to know since we can't go back to that point in time to find out for sure.
True enough. However, what's the point of this loophole you're leaving? Didn't God create Adam out of dirt (which is definitely not alive)? The particular process with which he did so doesn't seem to be expounded on. Why not just apply the same sort of disbelief as you did to literally interpreted creationism?


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-23-2006, 08:33 PM   #154
Jae Onasi
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem
 
Jae Onasi's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,916
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis
Jae, we're talking about the possibility of life arising anywhere, from anything. Doesn't matter if it's on another planet, made from silicon, or whatever. Sure, it may have a very small chance on any particular planet - but that's not the only planet that process is happening on. Like Skinwalker said, "How many stars orbiting how many galactic centers have how many planets with the right conditions[?]"
I understand what you're saying, I happen to disagree with it, unless you're arguing that our life came from another planet.

Life as it developed on this particular planet required a very specific set of conditions that _may be_ , though not necessarily _are_, unique to this planet. It makes no difference what happened on other planets that are unlike ours, and I find it unlikely that there are enough planets in the universe with our specific criteria to be able to dilute the stat enough for me to buy it. The fact remains that things like hemoglobin, insulin, ATP, cGMP, DNA and RNA and a host of other incredibly complex proteins, phospholipids, and other biochemicals had to develop within a very narrow range of conditions to create us humans. Most of these biochemicals can't function outside of these conditions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis
True enough. However, what's the point of this loophole you're leaving? Didn't God create Adam out of dirt (which is definitely not alive)? The particular process with which he did so doesn't seem to be expounded on. Why not just apply the same sort of disbelief as you did to literally interpreted creationism?
The Bible's not a science book, and I don't read it for science.


From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Read The Adventures of Jolee Bindo and see the amazing Peep Surgery
Story WIP: The Dragonfighters
My blog: Confessions of a Geeky Mom--Latest post: Security Alerts!
Love Star Trek AND gaming? Check out Lotus Fleet.

Jae Onasi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-24-2006, 12:19 AM   #155
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
I understand what you're saying, I happen to disagree with it, unless you're arguing that our life came from another planet.

Life as it developed on this particular planet required a very specific set of conditions that _may be_ , though not necessarily _are_, unique to this planet. It makes no difference what happened on other planets that are unlike ours, and I find it unlikely that there are enough planets in the universe with our specific criteria to be able to dilute the stat enough for me to buy it.
According to this, there are 7x10^22 stars in the visible universe. That's only the visible universe, mind. Using this, there are around 7x10^19 similar planets to earth. How many different combinations are being tried every year by each world (note that selection would take effect after the initial life is formed)? An extremely large amount given the earth-like conditions (more than one combination at a time obviously!). Also note that the Earth has had possible traces of life back to around 3.8 billion years, and the others would have as much or more time to form life. That's not even counting whatever solar systems that have lived and died before we've been around, or the ones outside of our visible universe, or ones we can't see because our telescopes are not good enough.

Can I ask where your statistics are from?
[edit; nevermind, Hoyle. He apparently uses the 'smallest living cell', which would be a lot more complex than the kind of thing that we're thinking of]

Quote:
The fact remains that things like hemoglobin, insulin, ATP, cGMP, DNA and RNA and a host of other incredibly complex proteins, phospholipids, and other biochemicals had to develop within a very narrow range of conditions to create us humans. Most of these biochemicals can't function outside of these conditions.
Abiogenesis is not talking about forming all of the complex molecules out of the blue. Just the very simplest ones would be formed at first.

Quote:
The Bible's not a science book, and I don't read it for science.
Neither do I. What's the holdup?

EDIT: I want to be clear that I don't really care if you think abiogenesis would work or not, or whether you felt another hypothesis is more plausible, or feel that you would like to reserve judgement until more facts are obtained. That's perfectly reasonable. I simply take issue with the fact that you replace any effort to obtain scientific knowledge on this subject with a catchall explanation for anything and everything. Seeing it from a Christian's point of view, of course God created life, so what? He created everything. I simply don't see how you come to believe that God created life in that way. Why would he create life ready made, and not use abiogenesis/any other hypothesis? He seems to like using systems based on natural laws to do, well, pretty much everything else that's been observed. Why do you think that he would deviate from this pattern in a way inconsistent the rest of creation?

So basically:

I don't think you have a particular reason for saying "God did it" besides the fact that you don't think that abiogenesis is believable. Simply because you think that one idea is impossible does not make its opposite (i.e., divine intervention) automatically true). Besides being totally useless as an explanation for what happened, "God created it" is redundant. Of COURSE he created it! Unfortunately, that's not what abiogenesis is trying to explain. We're asking HOW here, not 'who' or 'why'.

I don't think just creating life fully constructed would be consistent with other types of natural systems that God has created, such as evolution, which you have previously accepted. I have no reason to believe that God would create natural phenomena with no natural explanation. If you have a reason to believe that, then do tell. I would be interested in hearing it.

Therefore, abiogenesis explains some things about the origin of life and is useful as such. It has problems, but it seems to be a viable alternative to "I don't know." Perhaps other explanations will become available that will be more palatable to you in the future, but for now there seem to be few choices in the matter.


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein

Last edited by Samuel Dravis; 10-25-2006 at 11:53 PM.
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-26-2006, 12:38 AM   #156
Jae Onasi
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem
 
Jae Onasi's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,916
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis
Abiogenesis is not talking about forming all of the complex molecules out of the blue. Just the very simplest ones would be formed at first.
Hoyle's numbers are convenient to use. I could do a good chunk of the stats myself on my stats calculator, but it'll take forever without a program, and at the moment I don't have a ton of time to do this. The very simplest forms of life (around 100 proteins) are still incredibly complex, and all the parts have to be there for them to work. Miss out on one part of the cell membrane/wall or one of the proteins, and you've got nothing.

The holdup--having enough undergrad/grad level courses in stats, chemistry (organic and general), physics, biochemistry, biology, anatomy/physiology/embryology, among others (because I am a school junkie. Don't ask how many undergrad hours I had, you'll want to throw up. ) to evaluate the arguments pro/con evolution and actually understand the underlying scientific principles driving the findings. Some arguments are great and make sense. Some things require leaps in logic that I'm not able to make along with others. I see scientists on both sides of the evolution fence conducting some good scientific experiments that I find utterly fascinating. And there are bad experiments done solely to 'prove a point', and politicizing science drives me crazy. At some point it boils down to a fundamental faith in the development of life with or without a creator. The complexity of the simplest bits of life, the extremely low probability of the formation of even simple proteins, and the fact that DNA and RNA have never been found to form on their own (at least, outside of a living cell) makes it more difficult to believe it happened all by itself than by being helped along in some way by someone who put the pieces all together to get it going in the right direction.


From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Read The Adventures of Jolee Bindo and see the amazing Peep Surgery
Story WIP: The Dragonfighters
My blog: Confessions of a Geeky Mom--Latest post: Security Alerts!
Love Star Trek AND gaming? Check out Lotus Fleet.

Jae Onasi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-26-2006, 05:41 AM   #157
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,263
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
The complexity of the simplest bits of life, the extremely low probability of the formation of even simple proteins, and the fact that DNA and RNA have never been found to form on their own (at least, outside of a living cell) makes it more difficult to believe it happened all by itself than by being helped along in some way by someone who put the pieces all together to get it going in the right direction.
I think Mr. Dravis has a good point here: Why would God derive from his "standard pattern" of doing things and do "quick and dirty magic" instead?

The possibility that it might have been "helped along in some way by someone who put the pieces all together to get it going in the right direction" does in no way qualify the way it was done nor quantify the time it took to do so.

It'd be kind of "unusual" if there were DNAs and RNAs popping in from one cell to the next or from one second to the other. Also, the "slow way" (which still can be God's) shows more conformity to the concept of evolution (which also could be godmade), plus, it's not entirely certain that the first lifeforms had things like DNA/RNA. And we cannot assume there was always and exclusively the principle of using DNA and RNA to pass the necessary information for (re)production of cells/organisms. It would fit perfectly into the scheme of the evolutionary process if there were other ways to pass on these informations, but less successful, obviously. Perhabs there were batteries needed for this, or open fire, which I heard was both hard to handle, in primeval oceans, especially if it's raining a lot :PPP



Last edited by Ray Jones; 10-26-2006 at 06:22 AM.
Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-27-2006, 12:39 AM   #158
Jae Onasi
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem
 
Jae Onasi's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,916
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
Perhabs there were batteries needed for this, or open fire, which I heard was both hard to handle, in primeval oceans, especially if it's raining a lot :PPP
Bad Jae, having silly thoughts....

I suddenly have a picture of a pink Energizer bunny beating on that darn drum while rolling across the bottom of a primordial soupy ocean....

So what do you propose instead of RNA/DNA?


From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Read The Adventures of Jolee Bindo and see the amazing Peep Surgery
Story WIP: The Dragonfighters
My blog: Confessions of a Geeky Mom--Latest post: Security Alerts!
Love Star Trek AND gaming? Check out Lotus Fleet.

Jae Onasi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-27-2006, 02:07 AM   #159
Windu Chi
Banned
 
Windu Chi's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Getting revenge on that traitor, Anakin.
Posts: 882
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
I think Mr. Dravis has a good point here: Why would God derive from his "standard pattern" of doing things and do "quick and dirty magic" instead?
What kind of magic are you talking about?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
The possibility that it might have been "helped along in some way by someone who put the pieces all together to get it going in the right direction" does in no way qualify the way it was done nor quantify the time it took to do so.
Help by what?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
it's not entirely certain that the first lifeforms had things like DNA/RNA. And we cannot assume there was always and exclusively the principle of using DNA and RNA to pass the necessary information for (re)production of cells/organisms.
What else do you believe it will be?
If early life didn't have RNA/DNA then it's a good bet that our science of biology won't get the answer, since it only tells us of Earth's life history.
And not the rest of the Milky Way.
Because we don't know what the hell is out there.
Maybe you might be talking of some other form of matter that is not made of fermions.

Yeah, for people who don't know what they are.
They are subatomic particles of matter that don't transmit no forces.
So they can't be in the same place at the same time.
Bosons are the particles responsible for force interaction.
Bosons can be in the same phase.
Fermions make complex life chemistry possible by having stable atoms in electron orbits.
The electrons waves don't interact at the same time or at the same point in space.


Or maybe early life forms was made of electromagnetic plasmas.
You know, the energy blobs of early Star Trek.

Last edited by windu6; 10-27-2006 at 03:07 AM.
Windu Chi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-27-2006, 03:59 AM   #160
Windu Chi
Banned
 
Windu Chi's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Getting revenge on that traitor, Anakin.
Posts: 882
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
Well, I cannot deny that possibility. But I think that, according to my understanding of things, the chances that a being put up life per fingersnap is 1 against uncountable "by chance events" in the chaotic system "planet Earth". So the chance is way more bigger for random creation of life. To me this is not faith, it's math. Again, who knows how God did it?
The calculation of Chaos is approximations, the solutions to the nonlinear differential equations aren't exact solutions.
The solutions change each time the calculation is peform.
I have to agree that God or some intelligent being created life in this universe.
Of course there is still that unanswer question of who created God? Who created the creator of God?
Who created this damn infinite repeating pattern of creators.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
I really doubt life was simply put together. I don't think there was a single first "lifeform". I like the idea that the basics of life "died" a hundred billion deaths before there finally was anything looking real life-ish. And even then, it didn't survive, reproduce, whatever. Life started as what it still is, one big cluster of tons of chemical reactions (or in the case of cells, not that big).
Even though I believe absolutely nothing is impossible.
This free will chaos is hard to accept.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
Also, I found one question to be quite interesting: Is God a lifeform, too?
What the hell ultimately determine what life is?
Other than our bias Earth bound knowlege of the definition of life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
If so, how can God, as form of life, create life itself? Did he create his own existance as lifeform? I would find that hard to believe and logical quite impossible.
Nothing is impossible !
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
And if he's not a lifeform (this appears to me the only valid possbility in case he literally *created* life), then why impersonate him as "human" (or vice versa, humans after his image), because he is not even "life"? That seems somewhat contradicitve.
This is bias, we are talking about ourselves we are forgeting about the rest of the Milky Way and universe: A, B and so on.
Windu Chi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > JediKnight Series > Community > Senate Chambers > Evolution - and how we know it's right

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:58 PM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.