Evolution - True Or False

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by darksidZz, Feb 10, 2007.

?

It's

Poll closed Feb 25, 2007.
  1. False

    2.3%
  2. True

    88.4%
  3. Other; Comment

    9.3%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256
    If that is your opinion you are welcome to it. But that is not what was posted on this thread.

    If I may summarize...he said.

    "Ulrich Kutschera, professor for plant physiology and evolutionary biology at the University of Kassel, found the material inappropriate for the homepage of the renowned institute."

    You're interpreting.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    Apparently the peer reviewers also found it inappropriate for publication.

    You must be really fucking insecure to clutch at straws.

    What about evidence and argument?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. river-wind Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,671
    "Ulrich Kutschera, professor for plant physiology and evolutionary biology at the University of Kassel, found the material inappropriate for the homepage of the renowned institute."

    Because, as I stated, it was opinion and faith, and not evidence-based.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256
    Actually is was evidence-based.

    Scientist do that from time to time. Close there eye when something they detect as religion comes up. They wish to be impartial but as a result they only end up ignoring the facts because they don't like the conclusion.

    And emotional reaction to a scientific preface.
     
  8. river-wind Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,671
    you are correct, that does happen a lot; scientists tend to err on the side of caution when it comes to areas that blur the line with religion.

    However, I don't see that as being the case here. I still don't see any eveidence, just a lack of evidence and people inserting a supernatural force into that hole, instead of attempting to find a natural root first.
     
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,274
    That is not enough. It has to be reason-derived.

    One can base goofy assertions on evidence, after all. I have seen ID "theorists" claim that the presence of "irreducibly complex" structures in living beings was "evidence" of ID, for example.

    Garbage in is not the only way to get garbage out.
     
  10. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256
    I"m sure it was well reasoned him being a scientist in biology.

    To continue...

    The knowledge that has overrun society about biology magnify the gulf between nonliving and living things. Even the oldest known single celled organisms have been found to be incomprehensibly complex says one scientist.

    "The problem for biology is to reach a simple beginning," say astronomers Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe.

    "Fossil residues of ancient life-forms discovered in the rocks do not reveal a simple beginning....so the evolutionary theory lacks a proper foundation."

    Evolution from Space-Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe
     
  11. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    Good one Saquist.
     
  12. river-wind Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,671
    Which is why we rely on a consensus; so that one individual's crackpot theories don't take over. Being a scientist doesn't make a person more than just a person - we're all a little flawed, and we're all a little crazy in the head. But I'm crazy my way, and you're crazy your way - the areas in which we agree are the ones more likely to be objectively true.

    you should give a slightly fuller context of that quote. the book was published in 1984. There are 23 years worth of additional discoveries that the claim there does not have available to it. Roughly 1/6th of the entire time since Darwin published his theory.

    The Scanning Tunneling Electron Microscope was only 3 years old! I don't think any bacteria fossils had yet been found. DNA manipulation was in its most rudimentary stages, no substantial genome mapping existed yet, and there was a ton of work left to do in the area of transcription.
     
  13. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    However, the "problem" still remains, right?
     
  14. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256
    Yes, that's very good. You see that's why I put the refrence after my quotes so that you may look up the crackpots themselves.

    And 23 years later yes it remains true...

    The Principle Steps for the Origin of Life

    1:The existence of the right primitive atmosphere

    2: a concentration in the ocenas of an organic woup of "simple" molecules necessary for life.

    3: From these come proteins and nucleotides

    4: They combine and acquire a membrane,

    5Then they develop genetic code and start making copies of the themselves.

    Is this correct?
     
  15. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256
    Lets address the first one. You probably know what's comming....

    In 1953 Stanley Miller passed an electric spark through an "atmosphere" of hydrogen, methan, ammonia and water vapor. This produced some of the many amino acids that exist and that are the building blocks of proteins. However, he got just 4 of the 20 amino acids needed for life to exist.

    30 years or more later, scientist were still unable to experimentally to produce all the 20 necessary amino acids under conditions that could be considered likely. You tell me has anything changed?
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2007
  16. river-wind Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,671
    not to me, it doesn't. the last 23 years of discoveries have filled in so much of the "missing" information that I see an easy trend toward not needing to fear those "problems". Back to the atomic thoery and the atomic bomb analogy - in 1940, most people would not have thought that the bomb was possible.

    Today, most people don't think that creating life in the lab will be possible. Historical trends suggest otherwise.

    Roughly, yes. However, there is much more detail available in how that membranes and hereditary molecules could have come about. Not to mention that rudimentary heretitary information could have existed prior to our fancy DNA system; #5 is compressed beyond a point that I would consider accurate.

    There was a link provided already to someone who attempted to reproduce that experiment, and it talked about other failed attempts to mimic the results with different chemical compositions.

    Back in 1996, I asked my biology teacher why, if the Uery-Miller experiment created amino acids so effectively, someone didn't set up the same experiment and let it run untouched for 15 years. She had no answer. I still wonder this. You question is valid, but I thihnk it needs to be taken a step further - *why* haven't those 16 been created? Have been been trying and failing? have people not been trying? How have people been structuing thier experiments?

    Why hasn't there been a stronger push to try and create the remaining amino acids in those 20? I honestly have to say that I don't know. I've wondered this out loud for the past 10 years. Maybe it's hard to get funding for such 'boring' experiments these days. Or maybe the studies have happened, and have all failed. I don't like the current "publish or die" push in academics, and certainly articles on "we didn't get amino acids again!!" would have a hard time getting published - to everyone's detriment.


    Despite these problems, ton has changed in the general mindset of both society and the scientific community since 1953. For one, I don't think that it is still considered that all 20 amino acids are required for life. Our current understanding of viruses and prions suggest today a much more gradual path from non-living to living matter than was expected 54 years ago. Why are those 20 considered "required"?
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2007
  17. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    "Trend?" That's proof, a supposed trend?
     
  18. river-wind Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,671
    When have I ever stated that science is involved with proof? Do I need to link to the article on Inductive Reasoning again?
     
  19. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    No, we get your inductive reasoning on this one, it induces doubt, but that's fine with me.
     
  20. river-wind Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,671
    Given that Truth with a capitol T is only available from religion, and religions have spent thier entire existance disagreeing with each other, understanding the usefullness of being aware of what you don't know is pretty damn constructive.

    Do you want productive and usefull? Or do you want Truth that you can have absolute faith in? one is easier, one actually gets things done. Your choice.
     
  21. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    Christianity and good science go hand in glove.
     
  22. Nutter Shake it loose, baby! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    452


    If "creating life" in a lab did occur, such an event would demonstrate the need for a Creator, thereby confirming the fact of Creation and dealing a crushing blow to the metaphysical speculations of evolutionism.
     
  23. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    Great point, as usual, Nutter.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page