Darwinist's Dilemma (Are I.D. Biologists Legit?)

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by IceAgeCivilizations, May 9, 2007.

  1. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    That there are accredited scientists of any discipline among the IDsters matters none: Can any Intelligent Design advocate provide a testable scientific hypothesis in support of intelligent design?

    No?

    Didn't think so.

    Doesn't matter how many "legit" scientists there are among the ID camp.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    If Darwinism is the only legitimate model, then why do many legitimate biologists say that it doesn's pass the smell test, hmmm?

    Almost any model is as believable as your goo-morphed-into-you model, tiassa, instead of inorganic muck changing into life, for some unknown reason, as Darwinists say, I.D.ers may propose the creation of syngameons of animals, with natural selection within those syngameons thereafter, such much better matches the evidence.

    Darwinism is like a bad magic routine, academic voodoo.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    It really does boil down to spontaneous generation, by God, or from goo, both faith based, so people should be given the opportunity to weigh the evidence, both pro and con, for both.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Avoiding for the moment, your misuse of the term syngameon, the model you propose does not fit the evidence, since there are entire classes of animals that used to exist but now don't, and that exist now, but didn't a long time ago.

    Your main objection is with abiogenesis, not Darwinian evolution. The only evidence your give is that it happens to be beyond your belief that ORGANIC molecules formed self-organizing systems. Well, if you thought about it, all kinds of scientific discoveries are just as amazing, like how plants can make food from light and air.

    The difference between your idea and abiogenesis is the introduction of a complex agent (God) to do the original organizing. Since we can see other instances of self-organization in chemistry that don't require a complex agent like the formation of crystals, I can only conclude that you are being intellectually dishonest. Your bias, which is commonly known as fundamentalist Christianity, is basically at odds with the scientific method.
     
  8. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    Darwinism is dependent on abiogenesis, or the more ridiculous panspermia, so which do you propone Darwinist spidergoat?

    If you think the formation of crystals is in the same league as inorganic material turning into organic material, you are basically, at least, at odds with the scientific method.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2007
  9. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    Yes, there have been extinctions, as you well know, and of course, guess what caused most of the extinctions?
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2007
  10. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Darwinism is not dependent on abiogenesis. Even if God happened to be necessary to arrange the organic molecules into a self-replicating pattern, evolution describes what has generally happened since then.

    All I'm saying is that chemistry provides all the complexity required for a self-replicating chemical reaction to occur, without the need of inventing an ancient person to work it all out ahead of time.
     
  11. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    But you can't show that even abiogenesis happened without a Creator, much less that one-celled creatures morphed into humans, so yours may be God dependent all the way through, so what's the big woop?
     
  12. wsionynw Master Queef Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,309
    Then the question we should asks ourselves is this:
    Did life come from matter and energy.....or did life come from nothing?
    I'll choose the former.
     
  13. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    But inorganic molecules did. Several amino acids have been formed abiotically in a mixture presumably reminiscent of the chemical soup of prehistory. I am not disputing anyone's faith, but rather that no specific creator is required for abiogenesis.
     
  14. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    Several amino acids is hardly a living cell, stretches such as this is what makes Darwinists look so desperate, and desperate for good reason, no real evidence, so faith is their predicate to this point.
     
  15. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    No, "faith" is a substitute for trying to understand what can happen (and probably did)!

    For example (Not saying this is how life began. - What follows is just one of many abiotic possibility FOR THE ORIGIN OF LIFE that is easier to understand than some others.) In addition to the already demonstrated abiotic formation of amino acids, there is very often, even in today's oxygen containing atmosphere, various molecules formed, which are electrically charged on one end (Thus, hydrophilic as H2O is a polar molecule with the two positive hydrogen protons on one side 105 degrees apart, seen for the oxygen location.) and hydrophobic (avoids water, likes oils) on the other end. Detergent, although most are man-made, is good example of these molecules. It cleans the grease film off your plate because the Hydrophobic end of molecule binds to a "grease molecule" and the hydrophilic end binds to the H2O (which is really xH2O, a short chain of polymerized H2Os - x is a small, constantly changing, integer.) This binding, plus Brownian motion, pulls the "grease molecule" off your plate and into the water solution.

    If there are a bunch of these hydrophobic/hydrophobic dual-ended molecules in the sea, without God’s help, they will often form a membrane. (All line up, side by side, to make a 2D “micro-sheet” with one surface hydrophilic and the other hydrophobic.) Occasionally the ocean waves will roll these micro-sheets to form a "micro-tube." That micro tube may have some amino acids inside, get bent by another wave and close off a micro-sphere with amino acids inside. The molecular mono-layer walls of this micro-sphere are not impervious. Other molecules and enter and leave and the walls can have chemical reactions that even cause "selective pores" n the walls which favor the entrance of specific molecules - all by chance still - no "hand of God" required. It will not happen often that the internal mix of molecules can capture energy, not necessarily solar energy, but that is possible, more likely it will be free chemical energy (No oxygen in atmosphere for eons still). It is not unreasonable to consider that this small selectively closed micro-sphere is "eating" when it captures molecules with free chemical energy. It may even grow in size if some of the selective pours are such that other dual ended hydrophobic/hydrophilic molecules are captured while entering to expand the total surface. Again, I admit this is all very unlikely to occur, but the oceans are very big and if it only happens once in a million years, that is fast enough.

    Once you have one micro-sphere, that can grow, take free energy from the environment (or sunlight) then it will get big enough that some wave will break it into two smaller micro-spheres. Then in few million years, there will be billions of them in the ocean, some with surface molecular structures that facilitate the permanent joining of two units. Once you have these joined units that can eat, grow etc. then they will spontaneously (still no "hand of God") develop difference between them, which specialized for different tasks.

    As Adam Smith, clearly demonstrated in economics (and this all can be viewed from an economics POV) specialization for tasks always is the more successful competitor that each unit doing every task. I.e. slowly the population of the joined units, more efficient that the single micro spheres, grows as a percent of the total competing for the energy and amino acids etc. I.e. you may not need the "hand of God," but the "hand of Darwin" is clearly at work - the better adapted are displacing the less adapt.

    Now, as stated at the start, THIS IS JUST ONE OF THE MANY WAYS life could have originated without the "hand of God." Personally, I do not think it happen this way. I favor a different mechanism that does involve the surfaces of some natural crystals that aggregate in streams, even to day. I think that path can, and did, produce life much more rapidly, but it is not as simple to explain.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 12, 2007
  16. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    "Probably did," yeh sure.
     
  17. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825

    Mod note:
    The Religion forum is two blocks down, second door; any further evangelism will be met with severe incapacitation by snarling dogs (or an infraction)
     
  18. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    For a religious guy, you sure are a "Doubting Thomas."

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    If you doubt it happen only once in all the oceans in a million years that ONE micro-sphere develops by the physical / chenical mechanisms described in detail in my post 132 is "probable," then take 10 million years for it to happen ONCE in all the world's ocean waters.

    Once you have a micro-sphere with ability to eat and grow, then only the "hand of Darwin" is required to eventually populate the Earth with the creatures* you find here today.

    This common origin from one original naturally formed "micro-sphere" BTW, explains why all life forms have the same (we call it right-handed) isomer chemistry.
    ---------------------------------
    *Including some big-brained creatures with so little understanding of physical/chemical processes and probabilities that they postulate all creatures were made just as they are today by God about 6000 years ago. I do not think you are that dumb, but you appear to be only a few steps higher in intellectual development. - There is hope, however, as "Darwin's hand" gave you the ability to learn.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 12, 2007
  19. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    Your confusing me now. I thought that as a scientifically responsible person you would not want to go around spouting outdated ideas such as "ontogeny recapitaluates phylogeny". The links I have given already show that it is not part of modern science, and as such should not be mentioned except as a historical artefact. If you really want an argument about that, I suggest you go and ask PZ Myers, who is a professor of developmental biology, and wrote one of the articles I have linked to.
     
  20. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    Also, you can have your own meanings for something. That does not mean that your meanings are the scientifically accurate ones, or are relevant to the scientific discoveries of the past century.
     
  21. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    I told in some detail, in post 120, what I think those words now (and for last 150 years) CORRECTLY mean. I even illustrated with the word "lady" to show how the meaning of words can radically change with time. I agree that the original meaning of those words was wrong, but do not think the current meaning is wrong.

    You are ignoring my repeated request to tell me what is "outdated," "confused," or "obsolete," as you first stated about the detailed explanation I gave of the current meaning of those three words.

    Please either tell what is "outdated," "obsolete," "in error," etc. in my post 120* statement of the current meaning or stop saying that it is.
    ------------------------
    *also quoted in post 136 by guthrie recently, except he omitted the footnote about "structural" so I add the essence here: It is the ancient structural development which is "recapitulated," not the details of the biological / chemical mechanism and certainly not in the western world at least any of the disproven Lamarckian ideas about inheritance of parent's acquired characteristics.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 12, 2007
  22. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    Billy T, "Darwin's hand" has made you brain-dead.
     
  23. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    Billy T, you'll never live down your foolish Haekel rap, get used to it.
     

Share This Page