Denial of evolution III

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Hercules Rockefeller, Mar 9, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Hercules Rockefeller Beatings will continue until morale improves. Moderator

    As per the first two Denial of Evolution threads (here and here), this third instalment is also a quarantine area for threads that regurgipost all the usual creationist/evolution denialism stuff, such as:

    -- scientists know that evolution is wrong, but are hiding that fact in order to retain their power;
    -- evolution is just a theory;
    -- Darwin recanted on his deathbed;
    -- no one has seen a bacterium evolve into a fish;
    -- there are no transitional fossils;
    -- speciation has never been seen;
    -- okay, speciation has been seen, but the creation of new Genuses has not;

    ....and everything else which is summarily smacked down by everyone who passed high school biology.
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2009
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. hay_you Registered Member

    I was talking on other threads, and decided to come here. Because our conversations were best suited here.
    Just so you know I think the start to life and then evolution are both impossible without creation.
    I know this topic is on evolution but it makes a big difference if the start to life was created, rather than just happened.
    So my first question is, has any scientist or anyone else for that matter, seen life that came from non life?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Grim_Reaper I Am Death Destroyer of Worlds Registered Senior Member

    Define non life do you mean non living and if so define that further to simple brain death or physical death like say when a heart stops that sort of thing.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    as long as you aren't too attached to what you think to change your mind then thats fine.

    How about giving us the logical step by step progression of your ideas that led you to to making up your mind about what you think.

    a big difference to what?
    a big difference to the theory of how evolution works?

    Or to make an even bigger leap and say that evolution never happened?

    define life
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    I've seen a living being produced from a mass of immobile chemicals that had been inert, cold, and solid, engaging in no metabolic processes whatsoever, part of and encased in solid rock, for more than one hundred years.

    I have seen a living being emerge from a mass of chemicals that had been drifiting through space, inert and immobile and solidly frozen, without a sign of being alive or employing any living process, for many days.

    I have seen an arguably living being emerge from a laboratory produced crystal of which it was a component, after being subjected to X-ray crystallography such as is used to analyze non-living crystalline structures.

    Otherwise, of course every living thing on the planet appears to have "come from" non life in several senses, including its evolutionary origin on this planet (the most likely origin place) and its constituent chemicals which are being constantly replaced from soil minerals and chemicals out of the air.
  9. hay_you Registered Member

    Thats a good question. Well a single cell has many parts, and can reproduce, to make copies of it'self. Even bacteria, though it needs a host, to reproduce.
    There has to be some point in which science says evolution started. Does science consider single cell as the first bit of life? And because even a cell is complex, is the cell part of evolution?

    It makes a big difference if creation is in any part of the life we see on earth.
    Because the question will always be, who is is the creator. And it brings up the question, if life started with creation did the creator , design the life we see in that first creative act with DNA, so that evolution is really a designed occurrence,.... or is all life created in kinds or species?
    Science is telling us now that life started on it's own and evolved from that. There is no mention of any kind of creation. So if science finds out that life can not start without the help of a creator that changes everything. Even evolution.
    The thing is, science doesn't know how life started, they can't rule out creation because they just don't know. To have precursors to life or material for life does not mean that life could have started without creation. Even creation accounts say that the creator made man from the dust of the ground. So even from this point of view, the materials were here for life.
    Here is a little example.
    We know that all the materials for baking bread are here on the earth, but we also know that it takes a creator to make it. It does not happen on it's own. Science can break down bread to it's elements, and just say it is chemistry, and just has to be mixed correctly, but we know that it takes intelligence to make it.
    But now on the start of evolution, where does science start from?
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    By that logic, they can't rule out seeding from Jupiter's moons by malevolent squid beings from Alpha Centauri, either.

    Thing is, we have a fairly plausible notion of about when and generally where "life" started. We also have come up with a plausible, theoretically backed, mathematically and physically coherent, and demonstratedly capable mechanism for generating arbitrary complexity in self-organized entities - the basic requirement for generating life as we know it - and found that it meets our most stringent criteria for theoretical validity: it guides research into fruitful areas and inspires hypotheses that check out.

    So what's the problem with continuing our current researches guided by our current theories? - they seem to be percolating along just fine.
  11. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Whose the most recent common ancestor of Humans + X(choose a specie)........

    Peace be unto

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: Oct 27, 2009
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    There may be none definable.

    There is some evidence that the human line recrossed with a chimpanzee progenitor briefly some time after the early separation.
  13. Grim_Reaper I Am Death Destroyer of Worlds Registered Senior Member

    Nice deflection of the question but I asked you to define no life and death I did not ask about cellular biology. You asked have you seen life come from non life can you please not deflect this time and define non life.
  14. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    It makes not one iota of difference to the Theory of Evolution - because that only explains what the mechanism for evolution is AFTER life first came about - this is a very common mistake made by the newbie religious fanatics.

    So while agitators and religious fanatics on both sides of the fence may say things like evolution provides a framework from which it is now possible to exclude a god from the universe (i.e Dawkins) - or that evolution is inherrently atheistic (i.e. P J Johnson ) - they are both wrong.
    The Theory of Evolution is entirely compatible with the notion that the first life may have been created as it makes no comment on how life came about in the first instance.

    your punishment will to be write out (by hand - no copy and paste) 500 times:
    Abiogenesis is not evolution, evolution makes no comment on how life came about, and the method of abiogenesis makes no difference to how evolution happens.

    The problem with this viewpoint is it contains a HUGE logical pitfall. If creation requires a creator - then so do creators. If the fundamental premise of the fanatical fundamentalist is that nothing can come from nothing, then creators cannot be exempt from this rule

    Conversely, evolution does just fine if it turns out the first cell or proto-cell was magically poofed into life by the abrahamic God, a malevolent squid being from alpha centauri, or a flying spaghetti monster - we still know it took place after this - and we still know HOW it took place.

    Indeed - scientists dont know how life came about and some are striving to find answers with an open mind - thats what separates science from religious fanaticism on both counts

    True - but bread isnt alive - it didnt come about through millions of years of trial and error - so its a bad analogy

    It starts from asking questions

    OK so now you've had your newbie errors on the conflation of evolution with abiogenesis explained to you, what else have you got?
  15. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Yah, in the 80's scientists recreated what earth was like at it's creation. They found that out of the 4 main elements, sulfur, oxygen, methane, and CO2 plus electricity (to simulate lightning) they got 2/3 of the amino acids that we know of today as being used in living organisms. And that was in just 2 weeks of research.
  16. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Also, I am going to ask the question that has gone unanswered that sparked the end of the church and the beginning of the age of science.

    "If G-d is kind and loving, than why is the world around us so horrible?"

    And during the black plague

    "If the priests are G-d's messangers, why is it that they are dying too?"
  17. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    He also obviously does not know the difference between a bacteria and a virus...
  18. Grim_Reaper I Am Death Destroyer of Worlds Registered Senior Member

    This is apparent yes.
  19. hay_you Registered Member

    Sorry about the bacteria and virus mistake. I meant virus.
    First I consider all material as part of creation. But things like rock or lava as non life. Bubbles or foam as non life. But maybe science has a better definition than I do. So what does science consider life? Also when you said death do you mean something that was alive first and then died? If so, then life is when the cell can still function as it was designed to, and reproduce, but when it stops functioning, and can't reproduce, and it eventually disintegrates, that is death. Life is more than just chemicals. This is where science will find the problem, when they get to that stage.
    An example of this is a body when it is healthy and then the air is cut off and it dies. All the chemicals are there , but the body is dead.
  20. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    That's an assumption.

    Er, if the air is cut off then wouldn't that mean that everything isn't there?
  21. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    I am fed up to my eyeballs (and now, it seems, fedr808 up to my eyeballs) with this persistent misunderstanding of the relevance and misinterpretation of the results of the Miller-Urey experiment.

    The experiment used a reducing atmosphere. There is now general agreement that a reducing atmosphere was not present on the early Earth.

    The experiment produced only five amino acids with pretty low yields, not the fourteen or fifteen you are claiming.

    The importance of the experiment was that it represented a change in mindset in relation to the origin of life, demonstrating for the first time that it was feasible to investigate that origin experimentally. That makes it a landmark experiment. The actual results are disappointing and largely irrelevant.
  22. hay_you Registered Member

    Yes but once, dead the air does no good. Everything is there but there is no life.

    This tells me that science really has no idea how life actually started. Science could break down bread to all of it elements, and theoretically say if these elements came together just right would would have a loaf of bread. But we know it takes inteligence to make it happen.
    Besides there is a problem with this whole idea, of experiments. And that is, science doing the experiments only shows the creative side of the results. In other words, science preparing the materials and mixing them in a lab , only shows that scientists can create life in a lab. The experiment does not show that life could have happened on it's own. Just like the bread example. For science to show that life could happen on it's own, they have to be no part of it. Just an observer. The earth is not a good place for that because even science say they have not found all life that is here yet. Science needs to find it some place else and then prove it was not created. The other thing is that science say it took millions or more years, so to be accurate science would have to do the experiment that lasted that long, with all the differing conditions that would happen over that period of time.
    So science doing the experiments even if they succeed, shows intelligence was involved. Unless they don't mind showing how the creator might have done it.

    Now this forum is about evolution it'self. So... I was wondering at what point does science say evolution started? If you assume ( to assume is not very scienctific) there was life. What was that life , and what did it evolve into?
  23. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Possibly because the chemical reactions have failed beyond recovery?
    Think about it.

    And this is news?
    If we actually knew it'd be all over the papers...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Already addressed.

    Which simply means that you don't actually understand the purpose of experiments.


    You can't prove a negative.

    Another failure to understand "experiment".

    No it doesn't.

    Once there was life.


    Well US for a start.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page