Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Grand Theory of Life
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3939 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 16 of 77 (539616)
12-17-2009 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by ICANT
12-17-2009 1:20 PM


Ok here's your answer ICANT
Hi ICANT
You're right, I posed a question rather than an answer. Let me give the answer here.
ICANT writes:
Would you agree that if the God of Genesis created all the different kinds as stated in Genesis there would be no need for evolution beyond that which is observed and reproducible in a species?
Let us pretend that I somehow agreed that this specific God myth whose origins can be traced back to bronze age tribes created all the different kinds as stated in Genesis... there would still be a need for evolution beyond that which is observed and reproducible in a species, if life on this planet was to have any hope of surviving another 3.5 billion years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by ICANT, posted 12-17-2009 1:20 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3939 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 17 of 77 (539618)
12-17-2009 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by ICANT
12-17-2009 4:22 PM


Re: Life
ICANT writes:
Glad to see you agree if there is no life there is nothing to evolve.
I agreed to no such thing. I said that if no life form ever existed, then there would be no life form to evolve. The non-biological "evolution" (i use the alternate definition here, referring to change over time and not specifically biological evolution) of our planet geologically in the early formation of the solar system (a whole heck of a lot longer ago than 6,000 years I might add) must have provided all the ingredients needed for the earliest self-replicating entities to emerge.
I find Graham Cairns-Smith's idea of clay playing a role in abiogenesis as fascinating, and although the specific mechanism has not been widely accepted, it serves as an example of a possible inorganic start to self-replicators that could then lead to organic life.
Edited by Briterican, : Tidying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by ICANT, posted 12-17-2009 4:22 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by ICANT, posted 12-17-2009 5:50 PM Briterican has seen this message but not replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4423 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 18 of 77 (539622)
12-17-2009 5:15 PM


change is not the issue
Hi Guys
I'd like to draw a few comments from the above together and then make some comments.
cavediver writes:
If the study into abiogenesis shows beyond any shadow of a doubt that life could have arisen in a primordial soup, then it says NOTHING about evolution. Evolution stands and falls on its own evidence. It doesn't require and it doesn't imply abiogenesis.
OK, but that depends on what you qualify as evolution. Is the notion that everything came from simple life forms to complex life forms by common descent a vital part of evolution? If not, if evolution really is just variation of a population leading to speciation, then evolution is completly compatible with creation science.
grannymagda writes:
As for why creationists object to evolution, you tell me, but as far as I can tell, the main reason is because one of the origin stories that is not compatible with evolution is the one in Genesis. That seems to be the main bone of contention. One cannot believe in a literal Genesis and a mainstream ToE. The ToE is compatible with many different origins but one thing it is not consistent with is humanity being created in our current form at the dawn of the Earth.
Yes the origin stories are the main contention. Did we start off with very simple organisms which evolved into complex organisms, or did we start with complex organisms which evolved through variation into many different species. This is the main contention and that is why examples of variation etc do not impress creationists. So what is your main contention with creationists? Is it not because you believe that life originated as a simple life form? Why do you insist that life had to begin as a simple life form? Is it not because if you can start life simple then you feel that a naturalistic explanation of abiogenesis is more plausible?
cavediver writes:
If "chemical soup" abiogenesis was proved to be impossible, and let's go further and say it was proved that in fact the first life was made up of complex cells that were created by god, then what on earth does this say about the ability of those created cells to evolve? Nothing...
sure, but as suggested above, there is a need for life to start simple in order for evolutionists to make naturalistic abiogenesis more plausible. Change is not the main issue. Change from what is the main issue.

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Briterican, posted 12-17-2009 5:33 PM Arphy has not replied
 Message 21 by Meldinoor, posted 12-17-2009 5:57 PM Arphy has not replied
 Message 22 by Modulous, posted 12-17-2009 6:00 PM Arphy has not replied
 Message 24 by Granny Magda, posted 12-17-2009 6:49 PM Arphy has not replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3939 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 19 of 77 (539625)
12-17-2009 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Arphy
12-17-2009 5:15 PM


Re: change is not the issue
Arphy writes:
Is the notion that everything came from simple life forms to complex life forms by common descent a vital part of evolution?
Yes.
Arphy writes:
So what is your main contention with creationists?
My main contention with creationists is that they deny existing evidence and then try to convince others that the accumulated knowledge of the human race, via the scientific method, has got it all wrong. All this for the sake of preserving their particular man-made origin myth.
Arphy writes:
Why do you insist that life had to begin as a simple life form?
Because for life to have begun as anything other than simple would necessitate a designer, one who must have arguably been more complex than the life it created, simply raising more questions (where did the designer entity come from?) in infinite regress. It's turtles... all the way down.
It might also be because we have loads of evidence that life started simply.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Arphy, posted 12-17-2009 5:15 PM Arphy has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 20 of 77 (539630)
12-17-2009 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Briterican
12-17-2009 4:47 PM


Re: Life
Hi Briterican,
Briterican writes:
I agreed to no such thing. I said that if no life form ever existed, then there would be no life form to evolve.
Sorry about mispeaking there by changing the word life to the word nothing as I was only thinking in terms of life.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Briterican, posted 12-17-2009 4:47 PM Briterican has seen this message but not replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4798 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 21 of 77 (539631)
12-17-2009 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Arphy
12-17-2009 5:15 PM


Re: change is not the issue
Hello Arphy,
Long time since last I got to respond to one of your well thought out posts.
Arphy writes:
Is the notion that everything came from simple life forms to complex life forms by common descent a vital part of evolution? If not, if evolution really is just variation of a population leading to speciation, then evolution is completly compatible with creation science.
Evolution really only is defined as "descent with modification". It doesn't really say anything about starting conditions, or complexity. Most Creationists nowadays will agree with this concept of evolution, so it's funny how they pretend to oppose it. They really should be talking about "abiogenesists" when they take their highly inclusive swipes at "evolutionists". You'll notice how many creos on this site lump the two together, and more often than not, it's the origins part that bothers them, not the change in populations of living things.
Arphy writes:
Why do you insist that life had to begin as a simple life form? Is it not because if you can start life simple then you feel that a naturalistic explanation of abiogenesis is more plausible?
Contrary to Creationists, evolutionary scientists are not simply insisting something to make it fit their "explanation" as to how life began. Most books I've read on the subject of evolution, including those by Richard Dawkins, spend very little time talking about naturalistic origins. This is because we still know very little of how life began (although there are many suggestions as to how it might have happened).
The reason scientists tell us that life started off simple is because that's what the evidence is telling them. The fossil record indicates that life remained very simple for a long period of time, before the first complex multi-cellular life-forms appeared. These early creatures are all of a more primitive nature than their modern counterparts.
Evidence in DNA agrees with a simple origin as well, showing how all living things have DNA in common, and building a nice phylogenetic tree that fits nicely with the fossil evidence, as well as the geographical distribution of lifeforms.
While a Creator certainly could have created these similarities in DNA for no reason at all, in order to create the illusion that all life on earth shares a common origin, this is not a parsimonious explanation for the evidence. And not a testable scientific one at that.*
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor
*I intend to get around responding to slevesque on the CMI great debate thread tonight. I've been busy for the last few weeks, so I've been unable to participate. The content of this post will be used in the argument I put forth, so start sharpening up your rebuttal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Arphy, posted 12-17-2009 5:15 PM Arphy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by ICANT, posted 12-17-2009 6:11 PM Meldinoor has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 22 of 77 (539632)
12-17-2009 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Arphy
12-17-2009 5:15 PM


Re: change is not the issue
OK, but that depends on what you qualify as evolution. Is the notion that everything came from simple life forms to complex life forms by common descent a vital part of evolution? If not, if evolution really is just variation of a population leading to speciation, then evolution is completly compatible with creation science.
Yes, The Grand Natural Theory of Life would be eliminated as a possibility if natural origins of life was ruled out. But the natural theory behind the evolution of life would still be fine. The natural history of life we have constructed would be almost entirely intact, yes?
Creation science does conflict with evolutionary studies since it denies theistic evolution - often accusing theistic evolutionists as being de facto atheists.
Did we start off with very simple organisms which evolved into complex organisms, or did we start with complex organisms which evolved through variation into many different species.
The evidence strongly suggests that we came from rather simple organisms. What we don't have is a complete explanation as to how those quite simple life forms came about.
So what is your main contention with creationists? Is it not because you believe that life originated as a simple life form? Why do you insist that life had to begin as a simple life form? Is it not because if you can start life simple then you feel that a naturalistic explanation of abiogenesis is more plausible?
The main contention with creationists is that they lie and distort the truth surrounding various sciences they feel contradict the word of Near Eastern priests and various kings and so forth.
There does seem a significant trend of natural explanations behind it all, and there are advances in the area that are promising, so it seems worth investigating the possibility before postulating unfalsifiable alternatives.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Arphy, posted 12-17-2009 5:15 PM Arphy has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 23 of 77 (539633)
12-17-2009 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Meldinoor
12-17-2009 5:57 PM


Re: change is not the issue
Hi Meldinoor,
Meldinoor writes:
While a Creator certainly could have created these similarities in DNA for no reason at all, in order to create the illusion that all life on earth shares a common origin, this is not a parsimonious explanation for the evidence.
From Genesis chapter 2 I understand that God formed all creatures from the ground (common origin). So every creature would be composed of the same elements so why would God need to create and illusion?
Just wondering.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Meldinoor, posted 12-17-2009 5:57 PM Meldinoor has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 24 of 77 (539635)
12-17-2009 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Arphy
12-17-2009 5:15 PM


Re: change is not the issue
Hi Arphy, I hope you are well.
OK, but that depends on what you qualify as evolution.
Let's just stick with the Theory of Evolution as what she is understood, eh? There is a clear enough understanding of what we mean by evolution, let's not mess with it.
Is the notion that everything came from simple life forms to complex life forms by common descent a vital part of evolution?
Common ancestry is one of the implications of the ToE sure. It is also clearly evidenced by the fossil record, genetics and pretty much any other observation you care to make. This is a separate issue though from the distinction between evolution and abiogenesis.
Evolution is something that can only happen when life is already in existence. Abiogenesis, by definition, cannot be a part of such a process. What we can certainly agree on is that life, somehow, emerged from non-life. Only after this can that life go on to evolve.
The point of Mod's Grand Theory of Life is that it would encompass both evolution and abiogenesis, along with every other biological theory. Unfortunately, we are not there yet. Until that time, we are left discussing evolution and abiogenesis as separate fields, simply because the knowledge that might unite the two isn't in place yet.
The common ancestry of all known life isn't a function of this evolution/abiogenesis distinction though, it's just where the evidence points. There could just as easily have been two abiogenesis events, two separate strands of life. they could both have emerged and then evolved. But they didn't. It seems all life is related.
Yes the origin stories are the main contention.
That is the problem. Your attachment to these stories is what is keeping you from accepting reality. It's also what separates creation science from real science; in actual science there is no sacred dogma that must be preserved at all costs.
Did we start off with very simple organisms which evolved into complex organisms, or did we start with complex organisms which evolved through variation into many different species.
Or to put it another way, do we believe the evidence or the Book of Genesis?
This is the main contention and that is why examples of variation etc do not impress creationists.
Sure. You have the holy writ of God. Why would anything else impress you? Unless of course, you just have a bunch of made-up stories...
So what is your main contention with creationists?
My main problem is that you guys are just wrong. That and the fact that you teach others to get it wrong as well. Creationism does not fit the facts. The evidence is against it in a big way. That's really my only problem with it.
Is it not because you believe that life originated as a simple life form? Why do you insist that life had to begin as a simple life form?
I believe that life had humble origins because that it what the fossil evidence shows us. No other reason.
Is it not because if you can start life simple then you feel that a naturalistic explanation of abiogenesis is more plausible?
No, it's because the evidence points in that direction. That's it. I have no philosophical axe to grind on the subject, it's just that the evidence form the fossil record shows simple life first, complex life later. It doesn't show anything even remotely compatible with the Book of Genesis. That's it.
I don't have a foundational myth that I need to cleave to. I just go where the evidence leads.
And for the record, the reason why I anticipate that a naturalistic explanation for abiogenesis will prove to be the correct one (insofar as we will ever have a reliable understanding of how life emerged) is because of history. Whatever phenomena we have been able to understand, we have found a naturalistic explanation to be at their core. Supernatural explanations have always been in ready supply, but they have never been proved right. They have, by contrast, been proved wrong a great many times. That is a pretty reliable track record on both sides. I know which of those horse I'm betting on.
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Arphy, posted 12-17-2009 5:15 PM Arphy has not replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4423 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 25 of 77 (539641)
12-17-2009 9:40 PM


Hi Guys
I'll start off with this:
magda writes:
There is a clear enough understanding of what we mean by evolution, let's not mess with it.
Yeah I was hoping so but then I got some conflicting replies
britanican writes:
Arphy writes:
Is the notion that everything came from simple life forms to complex life forms by common descent a vital part of evolution?
Yes.
meldinoor writes:
Evolution really only is defined as "descent with modification". It doesn't really say anything about starting conditions, or complexity.
Which one is it?
If the word evolution does imply common descent from "simple" to "complex" life forms then it goes beyond the realms of biology into natural history.
If the word evolution is solely used in relation to biological change as in "descent with modification" then the word is not in any conflict with creation science. However, when we go into what organism descended from which organism this becomes natural history. So in fact you have no biological evidence against creation science. Yet it is rejected as a possibility because as Britanican so finely pointed out "Because for life to have begun as anything other than simple would necessitate a designer, one who must have arguably been more complex than the life it created" and then goes on to say "simply raising more questions (where did the designer entity come from?) in infinite regress. It's turtles... all the way down." In other words, he thinks it is in the too hard basket therefore it cannot possibly be the truth. This just isn't logical. Are you out to find the truth, or are you out to find a naturalistic explanation? If you were really searching for the truth you would consider other possibilities even if the questions initially posed by considering that possibility may seem difficult.
moving on
meldinoor writes:
Contrary to Creationists, evolutionary scientists are not simply insisting something to make it fit their "explanation" as to how life began. Most books I've read on the subject of evolution, including those by Richard Dawkins, spend very little time talking about naturalistic origins. This is because we still know very little of how life began (although there are many suggestions as to how it might have happened).
Yes, it is true that many evolutionists don't go into abiogenesis too often, however, it is stressed that life began simple and grew in complexity through completly natural methods. This automatically implies in the minds of many people that "hey, there can't be too much difference between a very simple cell and inorganic molecules, so the likelihood that molecules turned into an organism through naturalistic means seems quite likely". The "simple to complex" is stressed because it seemingly gives hope for a naturalistic explanation for abiogenesis. If the opposite scenario is taken of "highly complex to varied and "less" complex", then any hope in a naturalistic explanation for abiogenesis vanishes.
So what is the evidence used to try and support the "simple to complex" version. It isn't biology. It is the fossil record, as all of you seem to suggest, that you believe holds the key. So in other words, it isn't the present biological change that causes you to favour the naturalistc explanation, but rather you rely on interpretations of "ancient" relics to make your case. Do the rock layers beneath our feet really suggest the naturalistic scenario? Is the biblical explanation plausible? This is what needs to be discussed and so I hope that we will continue to explore this issue in the Great Debate thread.
Going into some other points made:
modulous writes:
Yes, The Grand Natural Theory of Life would be eliminated as a possibility if natural origins of life was ruled out. But the natural theory behind the evolution of life would still be fine. The natural history of life we have constructed would be almost entirely intact, yes?
No, not necessarily. This is because if things have "devolved" this implies that the starting organisms were highly complex creatures e.g. a fully formed mammal that had a large amount of variation potential. This doesn't fit in with the present view of natural history after life began.
modulous writes:
There does seem a significant trend of natural explanations behind it all, and there are advances in the area that are promising, so it seems worth investigating the possibility before postulating unfalsifiable alternatives.
Creation science is not unfalsifiable (see the great debate thread or read the AS vs CMI debate)
magda writes:
Common ancestry is one of the implications of the ToE sure.
Unfortunatly this sentence isn't very good (sorry, couldn't think of a better word to put in there). This is because in creation science common ancestery is also an important concept. "descent with modification" does not necessarily imply that ancestery is from a "simpler" life form.
magda writes:
The common ancestry of all known life isn't a function of this evolution/abiogenesis distinction though, it's just where the evidence points. There could just as easily have been two abiogenesis events, two separate strands of life. they could both have emerged and then evolved. But they didn't. It seems all life is related
This is also misleading. The fact that all life is based on similar principals doesn't in any way exclude intelligent design, in fact i would say that it is good evidence for an Intelligent designer. But yes, the distinction between abiogenesis and evolution is being eroded because of the implication of a "simple to complex" model makes a naturalistic abiogenesis explanation more plausible. Thereby hoping to create a completly Naturalistic Grand Theory of Life.

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Meldinoor, posted 12-17-2009 11:57 PM Arphy has not replied
 Message 27 by Granny Magda, posted 12-18-2009 5:51 AM Arphy has not replied
 Message 29 by Briterican, posted 12-18-2009 2:51 PM Arphy has not replied
 Message 30 by Modulous, posted 12-18-2009 4:53 PM Arphy has replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4798 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 26 of 77 (539646)
12-17-2009 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Arphy
12-17-2009 9:40 PM


Hi Arphy,
From wikipedia:
quote:
In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms through successive generations
From dictionary.com
quote:
change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift
From biology.about.com
quote:
Biological evolution is defined as any genetic change in a population that is inherited over several generations. These changes may be small or large, noticeable or not so noticeable.
My understanding of evolution is that at its most basic level, it is only about changes in the gene pool of populations. It doesn't need to be from simple to complex, and it has nothing to do with abiogenesis.
I therefore disagree with Briterican on this point, but in a way he's right, and I'll be getting to that in a moment.
Our understanding about how life originated, or of its simple beginnings, does not stem directly from the theory of evolution. The TOE does not predict that life must begin at a certain level of complexity. Indeed, it would function equally well in a world where life was created 6000 years ago.
That being said, how do we know that life started out simple? Well, one line of evidence is of course the fossil record. We find fossils of bacteria in sediments that are way older than any rocks containing more complex organisms.
Fossil Record of Bacteria
Now what I think Briterican may have meant when he answered yes to your question about evolution necessarily going from simple and complex and from a common ancestor, is that in light of evolution, that is exactly what the evidence tells us.
This is because of homologies in DNA which allows us to trace the common ancestry of all living things (it's tricky with bacteria, but works well for more complex creatures). Since even those lineages of life which have the least in common with each-other can be traced down to a common ancestor, that ancestor would probably have had only the traits that are shared by all living things. There are some things that all living things have in common, but if you strip out everything else, you have a very simple organism (by today's standards). So in light of the TOE, this evidence strongly suggests a simple beginning.
We can discuss the validity of dating methods in the Great Debate thread, and we can also discuss ancestry and the genetic evidence we have. Since this thread is about unifying evolution and the origin of life, I merely want to show why the two are currently separate. Scientists rely on evidence, not the theory of evolution by itself, to arrive to their conclusion that life must have been simple at the beginning.
Personally, I doubt we will ever know how life began. Even if we are able to synthesize it in the lab, we will still not know whether life formed by a completely different process or whether the life we created is at all similar to the precursors of natural life. I think there are many possibilities, including a direct intervention by a designer (although this explanation does seem a bit superfluous).
Finally, one last comment on your post:
Arphy writes:
Are you out to find the truth, or are you out to find a naturalistic explanation?
Science can ONLY deal with naturalistic explanations. There is no way to test for another explanation. While a scientist may accept the possibility that a supernatural Agent created life, he would not be doing science if he was satisfied with that explanation. Many evolutionists are theists (perhaps more than you think) who might gladly entertain the notion of a supernatural origin. However, if said person is a scientist who is studying the origin of life, the moment he puts on his lab coat he has to begin thinking in terms of testability and fact.
So while it is true that science seeks a naturalistic answer, it doesn't mean scientists are dogmatically ruling out the existence of the supernatural. Even if life could not have come about by natural processes alone, scientists will keep looking for a natural explanation. Because the moment we invoke the supernatural to explain anything, we give up the hope of learning and seal off one avenue of future discoveries.
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Arphy, posted 12-17-2009 9:40 PM Arphy has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 27 of 77 (539655)
12-18-2009 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Arphy
12-17-2009 9:40 PM


Okay Arphy, let's start off by seeing if I can clear some of the apparent disagreement here.
Yeah I was hoping so but then I got some conflicting replies
Apart from anything else, that's the nature of a forum like this. Few of us are professional biologists.
If the word evolution does imply common descent from "simple" to "complex" life forms then it goes beyond the realms of biology into natural history.
I think it's important to note that there is no reason why evolution should move from "simple" to "complex". That isn't something that the ToE demands at any level. You are right that this crosses over into natural history, where the evidence just happens to be quite clear that, in general, life has progressed from simple to complex.
I don't think that the terminology really matters here. The point is that evolution and abiogenesis are (under current knowledge) not wedded to each other - they are separate fields of study, both subgroups of the field of biology. It would be nice to weld them together in some sort of Unified Theory of Biology, but we're not there yet.
If the word evolution is solely used in relation to biological change as in "descent with modification" then the word is not in any conflict with creation science.
That's largely because descent with modification so incredibly easy to demonstrate that not even creationists can get around it.
However, when we go into what organism descended from which organism this becomes natural history. So in fact you have no biological evidence against creation science.
Natural history is part of biology. That gives us plenty of evidence against creationism - or do you want to argue that the fossil record is not "biological evidence"?
Yet it is rejected as a possibility because as Britanican so finely pointed out "Because for life to have begun as anything other than simple would necessitate a designer, one who must have arguably been more complex than the life it created" and then goes on to say "simply raising more questions (where did the designer entity come from?) in infinite regress. It's turtles... all the way down." In other words, he thinks it is in the too hard basket therefore it cannot possibly be the truth. This just isn't logical.
Briterican can speak for himself, but for my part, I reject creationism because it doesn't fit the evidence. Briterican's point is valid though; if we resort to a designer to explain the origin of life, it just leaves us with an infinite regress, which is hardly very useful.
Fortunately, this isn't a problem. Science simply isn't in the business of dealing with supernatural explanations. Natural explanations are all it can deal with, which is fine, since naturalistic explanations have such an amazing track record. I for one would be dead without our naturalistic explanation of disease for example.
Are you out to find the truth, or are you out to find a naturalistic explanation? If you were really searching for the truth you would consider other possibilities even if the questions initially posed by considering that possibility may seem difficult.
Like I said (and as Meldinoor has said), science just can't deal with the supernatural. If you disagree, perhaps you might like to design a scientific test that could conclusively rule out the influence of a divine power...
I am after the truth, whatever it might be, but the evidence only points one way.
Yes, it is true that many evolutionists don't go into abiogenesis too often, however, it is stressed that life began simple and grew in complexity through completly natural methods.
It is stressed because that's what is seen in the fossil record.
This automatically implies in the minds of many people that "hey, there can't be too much difference between a very simple cell and inorganic molecules, so the likelihood that molecules turned into an organism through naturalistic means seems quite likely". The "simple to complex" is stressed because it seemingly gives hope for a naturalistic explanation for abiogenesis.
That is simply untrue. It is stressed because that is what the fossil evidence tells us.
So what is the evidence used to try and support the "simple to complex" version. It isn't biology. It is the fossil record, as all of you seem to suggest, that you believe holds the key.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that palaeobiology is not biology?
So in other words, it isn't the present biological change that causes you to favour the naturalistc explanation, but rather you rely on interpretations of "ancient" relics to make your case.
You've lost me here. Natural explanation for what exactly? We use the fossil record for evidence regarding ancient life. What else would you have us use?
Do the rock layers beneath our feet really suggest the naturalistic scenario? Is the biblical explanation plausible?
Yes. No.
The Bible's version just doesn't fit the fossil record. The rocks don't tell a story of multiple complex creatures being created at once. There is no way you can twist the fossil evidence into a Biblical framework.
No, not necessarily. This is because if things have "devolved" this implies that the starting organisms were highly complex creatures e.g. a fully formed mammal that had a large amount of variation potential. This doesn't fit in with the present view of natural history after life began.
Or the fossil record for that matter. In fact, it isn't even a particularly good fit for the Bible. The point here is that a non-naturalistic explanation for life , where the first life is relatively simple could fit the fossil record and our current models of the tree of life. One which starts with "fully formed mammals" could not.
Unfortunatly this sentence isn't very good (sorry, couldn't think of a better word to put in there).
Hey! If you can't think of a decent way to express yourself, don't criticise my English!
in creation science common ancestery is also an important concept. "descent with modification" does not necessarily imply that ancestery is from a "simpler" life form.
I think I made clear that I was talking about universal common ancestry, or, as I said at the time "the common ancestry of all known life". That is certainly not compatible with Bible oriented versions of creationism, where various kinds are created separately.
This is also misleading. The fact that all life is based on similar principals doesn't in any way exclude intelligent design, in fact i would say that it is good evidence for an Intelligent designer.
It doesn't exclude an intelligent designer, no. It does however, exclude Biblical creationism. Genetics shows clearly that all life is related, not that certain groups were created separately.
But yes, the distinction between abiogenesis and evolution is being eroded because of the implication of a "simple to complex" model makes a naturalistic abiogenesis explanation more plausible. Thereby hoping to create a completly Naturalistic Grand Theory of Life.
May I ask; why do you seem to think this is a bad thing? Biologists are trying to understand their field of study as completely as possible. Do you have a problem with that?
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Arphy, posted 12-17-2009 9:40 PM Arphy has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2941 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 28 of 77 (539665)
12-18-2009 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by ICANT
12-17-2009 1:20 PM


The point of the OP
Hi ICANT,
Would you agree that for evolution to take place you would first need a life form?
This is an irrelevant point, we already know that life forms exist and there is a long fossil record that supports that. The theory of evolution explains this fossil record.
The point is, abiogenesis and evolution are mutually exclusive and explain their own set of independent data. That is the point of the OP, that the theories don't deal with the same evidence.
If there were no life forms, there would be no fossil record and obviously no need for a theory that explains the fossil record. But there is life, there is a fossil record and there is a theory that explains it.
Would you agree that if abiogenesis is impossible there would be no life form to evolve?
Abiogenesis is a theory that exists because there is a first life form, therefore if it is wrong then it would only be wrong because another theory has taken its place and explains the data better.
But regardless, the theory of evolution, seperately from abiogenesis, is the theory that explains the fossil record - a fact that is observed to exist. So neither one being shown wrong affects the validity of the other - each one has its own set of data that is independent of the other.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by ICANT, posted 12-17-2009 1:20 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3939 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


(1)
Message 29 of 77 (539687)
12-18-2009 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Arphy
12-17-2009 9:40 PM


Sorry for any confusion Arphy
Hi Arphy
Arphy writes:
Which one is it?
I apologise if an earlier post of mine added to your confusion Arphy. I'm still learning, and I didn't stop to think how a simple "Yes" answer didn't really say everything that needed to be said.
Meldinoor and Granny Magda have covered the question thoroughly in their subsequent posts, and Meldinoor was right when he said ...
Meldinoor writes:
Now what I think Briterican may have meant when he answered yes to your question about evolution necessarily going from simple and complex and from a common ancestor, is that in light of evolution, that is exactly what the evidence tells us.
I can, however, appreciate how my comment didn't help clarify things for you. Granny Magda elucidates the point...
Granny Magda writes:
I think it's important to note that there is no reason why evolution should move from "simple" to "complex". That isn't something that the ToE demands at any level. You are right that this crosses over into natural history, where the evidence just happens to be quite clear that, in general, life has progressed from simple to complex.
A bit further clarification...
Arphy writes:
Yet it is rejected as a possibility because as Britanican so finely pointed out "Because for life to have begun as anything other than simple would necessitate a designer, one who must have arguably been more complex than the life it created" and then goes on to say "simply raising more questions (where did the designer entity come from?) in infinite regress. It's turtles... all the way down." In other words, he thinks it is in the too hard basket therefore it cannot possibly be the truth. This just isn't logical.
Although I stand by my statement, I believe it was a poor angle from which to answer your question. Upon re-reading it does almost read as though I was saying "For life to have begun as complex, there would have to be a designer, and we can't have that now can we."
I think Granny Magda hit the nail on the head when he mentioned that science isn't in the business of dealing with supernatural explanations. The introduction of an intelligent agent as the creator of the first life involves delving into the supernatural. Science allows us to view the evidence - the evidence confirms that evolution has proceeded from simple origins to complexity. The fossil record demonstrates unequivocally that the simple stuff came first, with layers and layers of more complexity coming later.
I can appreciate your measured, non-hostile posts, and although I don't expect any of us to truly "change your mind", I do hope that you can think about what is being said, using analytical thinking.
The evidence available to us paints an amazing picture of the past, one in which great beauty and diversity arose from humble beginnings. When I stop and think about the fact that so much amazing biological evolution has occurred on this tiny planet, and then look up at the stars and wonder what sort of beings may have arisen out there, I cannot help but feel transcendent. It is what you might call "a religious experience" for me (or the closest I am going to get to one anyway). I am astounded by the magnificence of this history of gradual change that allowed complex and intricate structures to arise from simplicity. It makes me feel "one with the universe".
I can't imagine a man-made origin myth coming anywhere close to the overwhelmingly elegent and beautiful truth as revealed to us through science. The story of creation as told in Genesis is really very dull and boring compared to the majesty of what actually happened.
Edited by Briterican, : Tidying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Arphy, posted 12-17-2009 9:40 PM Arphy has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 30 of 77 (539691)
12-18-2009 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Arphy
12-17-2009 9:40 PM


No, not necessarily. This is because if things have "devolved" this implies that the starting organisms were highly complex creatures e.g. a fully formed mammal that had a large amount of variation potential.
There are two broad possibilities.
1. The evidence shows that things have 'devolved' from highly complex organisms.
So, if we disproved natural abiogenesis - this would not change the evidence that life has 'devolved' - correct?
2. The evidence shows that things have 'evolved' from more simple creatures.
My contention is that the same applies here. If we disproved natural abiogenesis - this would not change the evidence that life has 'evolved'. Would you agree with this?
Creation science is not unfalsifiable (see the great debate thread or read the AS vs CMI debate)
My apologies, change it to '...and there are advances in the area that are promising, so it seems worth investigating the possibility before postulating unfalsifiable or falsified alternatives.'
For example, the existence of a global flood is either falsified (there should be certain things we see which we don't), or unfalsifiable. But all of that, as you astutely note, is for another topic.
If you want the answer in terms that you cannot argue,
quote:
The main contention that I have with creationists is that it seems to me that they lie and distort the truth surrounding various sciences they feel contradict the word of Near Eastern priests and various kings and so forth.
There does seem to me to be a significant trend of natural explanations behind it all, and there are advances in the area that are promising, so it seems to me to be worth investigating the possibility before postulating what seems to me to be unfalsifiable or falsified alternatives.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Arphy, posted 12-17-2009 9:40 PM Arphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Arphy, posted 12-18-2009 6:29 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024