|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: What i can't understand about evolution.... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Peg writes:
If you haven’t ever done science, then how can you critisize it?
this is very true and i appreciate the point your making here. I've never undertaken any science studies so i'm obviously not speaking from experience. But its certainly not arrogance that makes me disbelieve evolution.
You don’t know anything about it by your own admission, yet you think you know more? How is that not arrogance?
if anything, arrogance is seen alive and well in evolution with such sayings as ”All competent scientists believe evolution. All intelligent people believe it. Only the uneducated and the ignorant don’t believe it.’
While I do object to those statements, as they have far too much finality to it, they are basically true. So, why should we not proclaim the truth?
This is a form of intimidation and mental bullying, almost being forced to believe it without questioning it
Not at all, question it all you like, but don’t dismiss evidence because you don’t like it, come up with legitimate reasons for it.
even though the theory has changed and there are many different schools of thought.
Of course the theory has changed, so has every other theory out there. Why do you trust the theory of gravity, yet not the theory of evolution? The theory of gravity has changed far more then the theory of evolution ever has. And there aren’t really that many “schools of thought”within evolution.
From what your saying above, only people involved the the study of evolution can understand it.
Of course they’re the only ones who can understand it. How can you understand something you haven’t studied?
If thats the case then surely you must understand why anyone who doesnt study might doubt its validity, because how can they understand something they have not personally studied?
Which is why I keep telling people to study it. Not understanding something is fine, claiming that you do understand it when you don’t isn’t.
Is it even reasonable to expect every person to study evolutionary science?
No, but those that don’t shouldn’t tell everyone that they do uinderstand it.
Likewise, is it reasonable to expect those of us who dont study, to simply accept the results of those who do study?
Unless you want to study it and prove them wrong, why shouldn’t you accept it? Do you have any indication they are unreliable?
this is quite a dilemma, yes? Lol
Not really, no.
im sure evolutionists are as committed to their ideas about the origin of life just as much as creationists are committed to their belief in a creator.
They’re not. If evidence is found that contradicts it, the theory will be changed to fit it, or, if that is not possible, an entirely new theory will be made.
both are a matter of faith if you get to the nitty gritty of it.
No, only creationism is, since it has no evidence for it.
Evolution has not given an answer for the origin of the first living cell or how lifeless chemicals came alive or how genes shape the form of living things .... or how lifeless chemicals came alive or how genes shape the form of living things ....
Which is not what evolution is about. Do you doubt gravity because it hasn’t answered the question where matter comes from?
these are all a matter of faith in that "it must have happened" even though we cant replicate it, or observe it.
Actually, it’s just different studies that occupy themselves with those question, go critisize them if you have a problem with what they claim, not evolution.
for someone like me, who has not studied evolution personally and who believes in a creator, this is a HUGE hurdle.
I can understand, but since you don’t know enough about it, how can you claim it is false?Also, could the creator not have used evolution to get the result we see today? On one hand evolution says that all living things in existence came from an original single celled organism or a primordial soup (???) ...or perhaps landed here in the form of bacteria on the back of a metorite...
No it doesn’t, that’s abiogenesis, or in the last case, panspermia.
The odds are infinitesimally small that any of this could have happened.
How do you know?
I dont have to be a scientist to know that life only comes from pre existing life, and yet, if i dont believe in evolution, then im an arrogant uneducated fool.
That also has nothing to do with evolution.
Well you see this is where i dont have a problem with 'evolution'
How can you disagree with something you know nothing about?
as i said im willing to accept that within a particular species, there is a huge variety and its quite reasonable to accept that species have diverged or branched out through 'evolution' aka 'genetics'.
Evolution is not AKA genetics, they’re two completely different studies. However genetics did confirm the predictions of evolution. Further, what would make the changing halt at the species level?
The problem i see in what you are saying is that, the feline at some stage is linked to the hyena... but is that really likely? What is the evidence for such a link?
Genetics.
Even Darwin expressed concern over gaps in the fossil record which failed to produce any transitional links.
Of course, in the 150 years since Darwin, there have been no further discoveries in the fossil record . ..Oh wait, there have been.
Actually the fossil record has shown the sudden appearance of fully formed and complete species over and over again.
Of course, incomplete organisms can’t survive. I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2923 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
Likewise, is it reasonable to expect those of us who dont study, to simply accept the results of those who do study? Good question and one that has often puzzled me. For example I have noticed that many people who will not accept biological evolution because they haven't studied it and do not understand it have no problem accepting the findings of nuclear physics, a topic they are equally ignorant about. Why is that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
...I have noticed that many people who will not accept biological evolution because they haven't studied it and do not understand it have no problem accepting the findings of nuclear physics, a topic they are equally ignorant about. Why is that?
They reject the theory of evolution, in many cases, because their local shaman has been preaching against it as far back as they can remember. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
quote: Before you will have a hope of understanding "evidence,proof...links...pictures...research notes etc" you are going to need to learn some difficult science. A good primer can be found in the talk origins archives courtesy of Douglas Theobald, Ph.D. and can be read here. If you click 'Next' from that page, there is some good explanations of the evidence of the universal common ancestry of all life and other general evidences of natural history. To answer your query directly you can use google to find these things, but I was hoping we might go through it using slow steps. If you really want to give it a go you can try PHYLOGENY AND CHARACTER CHANGE IN THE FELOID CARNIVORA By JILL A. HOLLIDAY quote: If you move down to about page 80 of the dissertation or about page 87 of the pdf file you'll see her constructed phylogenetic trees. You can also try something like The interrelationships of chromosome banding patterns in canids, mustelids, hyena, and felidsD.H. Wurster-Hill, W.R. Centerwall quote: But to be honest, without the (years of) studying these things are going to be difficult or impossible to understand. I certainly don't completely follow what they are saying. Edited by Admin, : Remove extraneous line feeds.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hey Peg, sorry to add to the weight of replies, but something caught my eye here, and I just have to object.
... even though the theory has changed ... I have seen several versions of this comment, and it puzzles me. The 'original' theory is from Darwin, and it is the theory of Descent with Modification, with the main mechanism of change being natural selection favoring some hereditary traits over others (even though he didn't know how heredity worked). He saw that this was similar to animal breeding where the selection is artificial (where man makes the decision who breeds and who doesn't), and he realized that this occurs in nature due to the constraints of the environment on the survival and reproduction of organisms. http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F373&...
quote: That is an excerpt of the original document proposing the original theory. Note that you have commented on the great degree of variety in many species from man to parrots. This, now, is a definition of the theory of evolution from a university that teaches biology to those trying to earn a degree today: The Berkeley University definition:
quote: Can you tell me how Berkeley's 'Descent with Modification' is different from Darwin's 'Descent with Modification'?
... and there are many different schools of thought. Could you perhaps show where these 'different schools of thought' are in the Berkeley article? Perhaps here, from another university teaching courses in biology for those wanting to earn a degree: The University of Michigan definition/s:
quote: Could you perhaps show where these 'different schools of thought' are in the UofM article? Notice that the first definition describes how hereditary traits change in populations from generation to generation (descent with modification), while the second definition talks about how descent with modification can cause speciation and the diversity of life. Both those sites are worth reading by every person who thinks they know what evolution is about, so they can see if their concept matches that used in universities to teach courses that are part of the degree program for biologists. Now I'll continue with some more of your post:
as i said im willing to accept that within a particular species, there is a huge variety and its quite reasonable to accept that species have diverged or branched out through 'evolution' aka 'genetics'. Exactly. Bingo. Go back and read the excerpt from Darwin, go back and read the university definitions and note that this is precisely what they are talking about.
Actually the fossil record has shown the sudden appearance of fully formed and complete species over and over again. Which is precisely and exactly what the theory of evolution predicts. This is precisely what speciation causes: the sudden (in geological time) division of a parent population into reproductively isolated daughter population, each always and inevitably "fully formed and complete species" - not over and over, but every time a new species forms. "Suddenly" hereditary traits are not shared between the two populations, so "suddenly" they develop different traits in response to different selection pressures.
Well you see this is where i dont have a problem with 'evolution' No, Peg. You do understand what evolution is, what you are having trouble with is applying the simple process you accept to the whole picture, and the reason for this difficulty, this "dilemma" you have, is what is called cognitive dissonance. You have two concepts that appear to be at odds with each other: on the one hand you have a god that created all life, and on the other hand you have a process that could be responsible for how all life was developed.
Are you able to provide any fossil evidence of partly formed organs or bones showing a gradual transition into a new species??? I cannot show you what has not occurred, nor what is not a prediction of evolution, but if you want to investigate and discuss what the evidence shows, please see Dogs will be Dogs will be ???. In the mean time consider this transitional animal: http://< !--UB EvC Forum: "transitional" turtle found -->http://EvC Forum: "transitional" turtle found -->EvC Forum: "transitional" turtle found< !--UE-->
turtle on the half-shell quote: Notice that it is fully formed, functional, and complete. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : color Edited by RAZD, : clarity by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Parasomnium writes: make an exception for evolution? Is it perhaps because, in your perception, evolution conflicts with your religion, and medicine and quantum physics do not? no, its because evolution is based on the premis that species all decended from a common ancestor... this implies that it originated from an original source...from a primordial soup where life sprang to life...where simple molecules 'developed' into complex ones, they came to life somehow and developed into all the life we have on earth today. THAT is why i take exception to evolution. Life only comes from pre existing life...this is fact and all smart scientists know it. This is probably why most have steered clear of placing 'origin of life' & 'evolution' in the same sentence. Perhaps someone should have told Darwin to change the title of his book from 'Origin of the species' to 'Species of Evolution' that would make more sense.
Parasomnium writes: So, yes, it is perfectly reasonable to expect those of us who don't study, to simply accept the results of those who do study. I am happy to accept evolution. Actually i do...to a point... only to the point where the origin of life is involved. If evolution insists that each species came from some other species, then this is not in line with what we see in nature. Each species continues to produce its own kind - in great variety - I accept this and i accept genetics. But this crossing of species does not happen. They have not successfully cross bred anything of a differnt species, have they?
Parasomnium writes: Even if this simplified version of evolution were accurate, then how do you know what the odds are? Could you elaborate on the precise calculations of the odds involved? How likely is it that the amino acids thought to have formed in the atmosphere would drift down and form an “organic soup” in the oceans? The same energy that would split the simple compounds in the atmosphere would most likely decompose any complex amino acids that formed in the atmosphere. Ultra violent light is used to kill bacteria, not grow it! i've read that there are over 100 amino acids, but only 20 are needed for life’s proteins, yes? And they come in two types, yes? Now here's the problem, if they formed at random, as in a theoretical organic soup, it is most likely that half would be of one type and half would be of the other type. Yet, of the 20 amino acids used in producing life’s proteins, ALL are of the same type. the odds of this happening would be like me having a huge jar of blue and red jelly beans, mixing them all up and putting my hand in to pull out a handful that are all the same colour! What are chances of that happening????
Parasomnium writes: what happens to such molecules is just chemistry and physics. A cell is very much more complex than those single molecules, but ultimately, what's going on in a cell is still only chemistry and physics. And if that's the case, then, given that evolution can take place even at the molecular level, it's possible for life to come from non-life, wherever you draw the line between them. it is only possible if existing life is used at the projectornote this comment from the 1974 Encyclopædia Britannica, French microbiologist Rene Dubos. its from his essay“The Mysteries of Life.” “A fully developed virus, which had been naturally produced by a living organism, was separated into its component parts by chemical procedures. When these separate parts were tested for biological activity, they were found to be inert, that is, they were unable to multiply in a susceptible organism. This biological activity was restored, however, when the parts of the virus were chemically reassembled in the test tube under the proper conditions. Spectacular as this achievement is from the chemical point of view, it does not constitute”as has been claimed”the production of life de novo. Since the virus first had to be produced by a living organism, and since its reassembled parts showed activity only when introduced into a living susceptible organism, all the biological machinery essential for its reproduction had to be provided by preexisting life." Parasomnium writes: You might take a look at the evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles. In brief, it appears from the fossil record that three bones that fulfilled a function in the jaws of early reptiles have evolved into the three small bones in the middle ear of their mammalian descendants, where they now have a function quite different from the original. Thats pure conjecture. if you look at the bones of many creatures you'll see similarities, it cannot be proved that these bones evolved to produce a new species.When the amphibian supposedly evolved into a reptile, the wastes eliminated were noted to have changed from urea to uric acid. But when the reptile became a mammal there was a reversal. Mammals went back to the amphibian way, eliminating wastes as urea. In effect, evolution went backward”something that theoretically it is not supposed to do. How do they explain that??? Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Annafan Member (Idle past 4610 days) Posts: 418 From: Belgium Joined: |
I just would like to provide my condolences and respect to all the people who show (soon "have shown"?) patience and perseverance while dealing with certain people in this thread.
I figured they need it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Peg writes:
Peg, it isn't based on that. It's based on the fact that allele frequency in a population changes over time.
no, its because evolution is based on the premis that species all decended from a common ancestor this implies that it originated from an original source...from a primordial soup where life sprang to life...where simple molecules 'developed' into complex ones, they came to life somehow and developed into all the life we have on earth today.
No it doesn't, that has nothing to do with evolution. Life could've been made by aliens, god whatever you can think of, after that evolution took over.
THAT is why i take exception to evolution.
But it has nothing to do with evolution.
Life only comes from pre existing life...this is fact and all smart scientists know it.
This is wrong, where did the original life form come from, if it can only come from other life?
This is probably why most have steered clear of placing 'origin of life' & 'evolution' in the same sentence.
The reason they steer clear of it is because they are two completely different things.
Perhaps someone should have told Darwin to change the title of his book from 'Origin of the species' to 'Species of Evolution'
But evolution IS the origin of species, not the origin of life.
that would make more sense.
Not really, since evolution IS the origin of all species.
I am happy to accept evolution. Actually i do...to a point... only to the point where the origin of life is involved.
Then you accept it completely, because it has nothing to do with the origin of life.
If evolution insists that each species came from some other species, then this is not in line with what we see in nature.
Yes it is, speciation has been observed, both in nature and in labs.
Each species continues to produce its own kind - in great variety - I accept this and i accept genetics.
But it's not true, as pointed out, speciation has been observed. And a "kind" is not the same as species, or, if it is, new kinds have been ovserved to evolve.
But this crossing of species does not happen.
Yes it does.
They have not successfully cross bred anything of a differnt species, have they?
Why would they need to do that? The definition of a species is organisms that can produce fertile offspring together, if they cant do that they're not the same species. And, to make it even more confusing, two different species CAN produce offspring sometimes, do mules ring a bell?
How likely is it that the amino acids thought to have formed in the atmosphere would drift down and form an “organic soup” in the oceans? The same energy that would split the simple compounds in the atmosphere would most likely decompose any complex amino acids that formed in the atmosphere. Ultra violent light is used to kill bacteria, not grow it!
All very nice questions, but they have nothing to do with evolution.
i've read that there are over 100 amino acids, but only 20 are needed for life’s proteins, yes? And they come in two types, yes? Now here's the problem, if they formed at random, as in a theoretical organic soup, it is most likely that half would be of one type and half would be of the other type. Yet, of the 20 amino acids used in producing life’s proteins, ALL are of the same type. the odds of this happening would be like me having a huge jar of blue and red jelly beans, mixing them all up and putting my hand in to pull out a handful that are all the same colour! What are chances of that happening???? Thats pure conjecture. if you look at the bones of many creatures you'll see similarities, it cannot be proved that these bones evolved to produce a new species.
What the hell are you talking about? where does it say that? You see, this is the problem Peg, because you haven't studied evolution, you have all these things in your head that evolution doesn't claim happens, yet you think it does say this. Now, if you don't study it, yet continue to say it says this, you do indeed come off as ignorant of the theory, because basically, you are. There's nothing wrong with being ignorant about something, but when told time and again you are wrong on something, yet refuse to study the subject, it becomes a problem.
In effect, evolution went backward”something that theoretically it is not supposed to do.
How do you know it's not supposed to do that, you haven't studied it, and judging by your comments, you don't even know what it says. I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Hi Peg,
If evolution is wrong then it can only be wrong about things it actually says, and you don't seem to know anything much about what evolution actually says. Replies to you usually take the form of correcting one misimpression after another. For example:
Peg writes: no, its because evolution is based on the premis that species all decended from a common ancestor... This has been explained at least several times now, but trying once again, common descent is not a premise of evolution. It's an implication of the evidence. That new species evolve from existing species is a basic premise of evolution, but that life on this planet descended from a common ancestor is a conclusion based upon fossil and genetic evidence. A conclusion is the opposite of a premise. You have things completely backwards in your mind. This fossil and genetic evidence could have told us something different. They might have told us that there were multiple lines of descent, that there were multiple origins of life. We might have discovered that fish have no relationship to land animals, or that bacteria have no relationship to the cells of our own bodies. And if that was what we had actually discovered, evolution would be just as valid. Evolution would still hold that new species evolve from existing species. Your objections to evolution on the basis of common descent are without any foundation. For clarity, let me go on to say that of course multiple lines of descent is not what the fossil and genetic evidence told us. Looking at the fossil record we see that fish are very closely related to land animals. Genetic studies tell us that all cellular life, including bacteria and the cells in our own body, uses DNA and an RNA protein production factory. All evidence points to a common ancestor for all life. And it's a conclusion, not a premise. I've already written five paragraphs and have only addressed the first sentence of your post. Are you finding the long replies helpful, or are they just too much? Please let us know, maybe we should handle this in smaller chunks. For now in this message I'll just keep going.
this implies that it originated from an original source...from a primordial soup where life sprang to life...where simple molecules 'developed' into complex ones, they came to life somehow and developed into all the life we have on earth today. THAT is why i take exception to evolution. This, too, has been explained several times. I share the concern expressed by Annafan that you may be on the verge of exhausting people's patience. It's fine if you don't accept what we're telling you and want to argue about it, but you're just ignoring it while repeating the same errors. I think I'll sign off now and just start my workday. I can see you have strong convictions about what evolution says, and I can only hope that you gradually come to realize that almost none of it is so. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4220 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
When the amphibian supposedly evolved into a reptile, the wastes eliminated were noted to have changed from urea to uric acid. But when the reptile became a mammal there was a reversal. Mammals went back to the amphibian way, eliminating wastes as urea. In effect, evolution went backward”something that theoretically it is not supposed to do. How do they explain that??? Why backward? There is no direction in evolution. Changes that make a species more likely to survive will be passed on to future generations. The change from urea to uric acid allowed reptiles & later birds to lay eggs on land. Uric acid doesn't disolve in water and could be "dumped" at the side of the egg. Mammals, which are viviparous don't need the uric acid dodge and eventually reverted back to urea. It is not backward. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: This is completely false. The idea that all life has a single ancestor is a conclusion based on evidence.
quote: Well you got something right..
quote: And then got it wrong again. The fact that life stems from a single source does not imply any particular source.
quote: Then, since your objection is based on a clear misunderstanding, can we take it that you accept evolution now ?
quote:If this is really true then life must have existed for an infinite time (or not exist at all) since there can be no origin of life. Since the evidence is very much against it smart scientists do not believe it at all. However, the very fact that we do not see new life forms springing into existence SUPPORTS the idea of a single common ancestor - since it requires only a single origin of life event.
quote: In that case, you accept all of it, since the origin of life is NOT involved.
quote: Up to now you said that your only objection to evolution was to the origin of life. Now you are suddenly rejecting speciation ! Do you actually think about what you are writing ? Did you not notice that you completely contradicted your previous sentence ? Or your own statement in Message 244
its quite reasonable to accept that species have diverged or branched out through 'evolution' aka 'genetics'.
quote: Species do not generally develop through cross-breeding.
quote: This is why people say that you are arrogant. Rather than looking at the evidence you have simply decreed that it cannot exist. Unfortunately for you, it does exist. We have transitional fossils illustrating the change (as you would know if you had actually investigated the link). Indeed the bones are not merely similar - they are anatomically the same bones.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Sorry Peg, you are wrong,
no, its because evolution is based on the premis that species all decended from a common ancestor... Absolutely false. Read Darwin Read the university links I provided. Evolution is based on living biology, and the primary process of change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation, plus the secondary process of division of parent populations into reproductively isolated daughter populations, where the changes inherited while isolated leave them unable or unwilling to mate later. What part of that depends on origins IN ANY WAY? What part of Descent with Modification depends on origins IN ANY WAY? Evolution results in new species from existing species - what part of that depends on origins IN ANY WAY? The rest of your post is wrong because your premise is wrong.
... based on the premis that species all decended from a common ancestor. We know common descent occurs when we see speciation occur. The theory then PREDICTS that this will be the case for relationships of species. Taking this PREDICTION to the ultimate results in a single ancestor, BUT THIS RESULT IS NOT NECESSARY for evolution to be true. PREDICTIONS are NOT the BASIS of theory they are the RESULT. One could ask "Why do creationists always get it backwards?" Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
no, its because evolution is based on the premis that species all decended from a common ancestor... this implies that it originated from an original source...from a primordial soup where life sprang to life...where simple molecules 'developed' into complex ones, they came to life somehow and developed into all the life we have on earth today. THAT is why i take exception to evolution. The universal common ancestor of all life, assuming there is one (and the evidence is not entirely conclusive but it is fairly convincing), was a living organism that probably existed a long time (thousands, hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions of years) after the primordial soup. So, seriously, the two things should be kept distinct for a reason. Many scientists (of the relevant fields) believe that proto-life became early life through a process analogous to evolution, but non-life to proto-life is still something of an unknown process other than the near certainty that it was dictated by the laws of chemistry. If you propose that the laws of chemistry were suspended for some reason (ie a divine hand) you are the one with the uphill struggle to demonstrate this - but that can wait for another time (it has waited long enough to date a few more centuries won't make any difference).
Life only comes from pre existing life...this is fact and all smart scientists know it. Do you have any evidence for this assertion? On what grounds are the following people *not* smart scientists? Jack W. SzostakKatarzyna Adamala Tony Bell Raphael Bruckner Xin Cai Jingyang (Jesse) Chen Quentin Dufton Mark Elenko Ben Heuberger Mathangi Krishnamurthy Chi-Wang Lin Alexander (Sasha) Litovchick Alonso Ricardo Yollete V. Guillen Schlippe Jason P. Schrum Pam Svec Sylvia Tobé Simon Trevino Na Zhang Shenglong Zhang Ting F. Zhu Keyong Zou (scientists from a single lab investigating the origin of life at Harvard) To help you come up with an answer to that question, here is a very simply 10 minute summary of their work: Please let us know exactly why these people are not 'smart scientists'. There are more summaries at this site Then you can tackle: Stuart A. Kauffman His wiki page advises us:
quote: So by what definition is he not 'smart'? Professor Jeffrey L. Bada, Professor of Marine Chemistry. Is this scientist not 'smart'? Why? Robert Shapiro, Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Scientist in the Department of Chemistry at New York University B.S., City College of New York; Ph.D., Harvard University; Postdoctoral training, Cambridge University, over 125 publications, care to tell us why he is not smart?
quote: Leslie Orgel (recently deceased), according to the wiki article:
quote: Are you telling me that Orgel was not a smart scientist? Louis Allamandola
quote: Here is a list of relevant publications he and his team have contributed to origin of life studies. Are you suggesting this scientist, and the scientists listed as authors of those papers are not smart? Prof Michael J Russell, University of Glasgow. They were the ones I found with 30 seconds of googling. Are you trying to say, with a straight face, that it is not the most enormous act of hubris and arrogance for someone like yourself, with a self-admitted absense of any knowledge of this subject - a person who after being told several times still gets confused between the Theory of Evolution and Evolution itself and the concept of the abiogenetic origin of life and Natural History - who has the gall to suggest that the above highly acclaimed, highly honoured, widely published research scientists are not smart? And I didn't even scratch the surface. Thousands of other scientists could be referenced given time that I don't care to spend. Do you really, seriously, deny that you are being massively arrogant when you suggest that you are in an appropriate position to judge the 'smartness' of the above luminaries and hard working lab guys? I am frankly, astonished. You need to get off your high horse for a moment their bud, otherwise its going to be very difficult to communicate with you. You really are the electrician-denying lunatic from my previous example if you are sincere in your belief that these scientists are not smart. You might think they are wrong - but not smart? I am flabbergasted by the effrontery, the overweeningness, the excessive pride, the presumption, the uppishness, damnit, the thesaurus doesn't have enough polite words to use to express my feelings about the extent of your arrogance...if you are being sincere in your words. To be honest, I don't think you were. I think you were just trying to stress your point, but you did so in a fashion that went beyond breaking point. If you care to sit down and think about it for at least one solid minute, you will see that it was a silly and rash thing for you to say. Despite what others might think or express on these boards - I don't think you are stupid - I just think you have a psychological block which is causing you problems. I remember I failed a physics exam once because of such a block. It was an exam on fluid dynamics and I refused to accept anything the literature said about the way fluids travel through varying sized channels. It was all counterintuitive and my intuition was precious to me. As such, I got 0/50 on the exam. These 'blocks' are common enough, but they can result in the most ludicrous opinions and ideas. Like as a seventeen year old college student I somehow knew better than the fifty five year old published physicist? I honestly thought he was being stupid when he said some of the things he said, and any smart person would agree with my view of fluid dynamics. Stupid intuition more like. Stupid stupid intuition.
Perhaps someone should have told Darwin to change the title of his book from 'Origin of the species' to 'Species of Evolution' That wouldn't have made sense. The 'Evolution of species', maybe, but in Darwin's time evolution meant an unfurling of a pre-written scroll or likewise and Darwin was apparently disinclined to use the world evolution due to its implications of fate and pre-destiny. He preferred, 'Descent with modification'. Besides, Darwin's seminal book was meant to describe the origin of the variety of species that existed during the Victorian period (ie., the variety of finches, tortoises, pigeons etc etc) - so the title makes sense. He did not call it 'the origin of life'.
I am happy to accept evolution. Actually i do...to a point... only to the point where the origin of life is involved. Then you accept evolution entirely. Still you aren't being completely accurate here. You do deny the natural history as understood by the consensus of scientists since you deny the relatedness of cats and hyenas. Their common ancestry was much more recent than the origin of life. Still if the origin of life is genuinely your only beef you should be debating in Origin of Life, not here. Though this thread has devolved into a catchall evolution misconceptions thread it seems.
If evolution insists that each species came from some other species, then this is not in line with what we see in nature. Each species continues to produce its own kind - in great variety - I accept this and i accept genetics. Yes, that is what the theory evolution proposes as the explanation for the changes that have occurred in the populations of life on earth over time. Species slowly diverging over time always after their own 'kind' (it is called the nested hierarchy of life - I provided a link earlier).
But this crossing of species does not happen. They have not successfully cross bred anything of a differnt species, have they? They sort of have - but that is mostly not relevant to evolution. There is the process of horizontal gene transfer - retroviruses can insert DNA into other animals (it is one of the ways we can test paternity by looking for these insertions) and some species have been cross bred (lions and tigers for example...but that is not the principle driving force of evolution since most of the time they are sterile (like mules, which are crosses of horses and donkeys). All mammals started with a single species (or at least a very small number) that diverged into many branches of mammals, cats, dogs, humans, horses etc etc. Likewise, all animals started with a single species (similar disclaimer to above), that diverged into the many different animals today. Likewise all life started as a single species (disclaimer disclaimer), that diverged into plants, animals and fungi etc.
How likely is it that the amino acids thought to have formed in the atmosphere would drift down and form an “organic soup” in the oceans? Very likely, it would seem. But amino acids can form on the ground, in the air, in the sea and in space: they are absurdly easy to make it seems.
Ultra violent light is used to kill bacteria, not grow it! And yet complex organic chemistry exists on rocks at near zero temperatures with no atmosphere and thus no protection from UV radiation. A lot of bio-chemistry is hypothesized to occur underwater (hence the term 'soup') - which acts as a complete shield against UV radiation.
Now here's the problem, if they formed at random, as in a theoretical organic soup, it is most likely that half would be of one type and half would be of the other type. Yet, of the 20 amino acids used in producing life’s proteins, ALL are of the same type. Indeed - but various things such as clays can act as catalysts and sort left and right handed amino acids apart from each other. The fact that they are all of the same type is actually evidence of universal common ancestry if you stop and think about it. There is no reason that God or aliens had to make every animal of the same type of amino acid is there? If there was a 50% chance of picking either one for each 'kind' - what are the chances they picked the same one for all of them?
Thats pure conjecture. if you look at the bones of many creatures you'll see similarities, it cannot be proved that these bones evolved to produce a new species. You can prove no historical hypothesis. How many times does it need repeating before you will absorb this fundamental fact about history? Now, are you going to deny Henry VIII had six wives, the existence of the Egyptians, the battle of Hastings because they cannot be proved? The evidence that life has changed via the mechanisms described by the theory of evolution is overwhelming...more overwhelming than the evidence that King Harold was hit in the eye by an arrow.
When the amphibian supposedly evolved into a reptile, the wastes eliminated were noted to have changed from urea to uric acid. But when the reptile became a mammal there was a reversal. Mammals went back to the amphibian way, eliminating wastes as urea. In effect, evolution went backward”something that theoretically it is not supposed to do. How do they explain that??? Once again, a basic misconception of evolution. I have not investigated the particular claim of waste management you are proposing here - it would be nice for some links or some references if you don't mind. But let's assume you are right on this - evolution has no direction. There is no 'backwards' and 'forwards'. After all, when the dinosaurs went extinct - animals generally stopped being supersized monsters and went to...mammal sized which is on average only a few kilograms. Though there were many small dinosaurs, there are very few large land animals these days - and none are comparable to the big guns of the dinos. This is not a problem for evolution which has no predetermined target or goals. It is just about life surviving or not surviving. That's it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3674 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Do you really, seriously, deny that you are being massively arrogant when you suggest that you are in an appropriate position to judge the 'smartness' of the above luminaries and hard working lab guys? I am frankly, astonished. You need to get off your high horse for a moment their bud, otherwise its going to be very difficult to communicate with you. You really are the electrician-denying lunatic from my previous example if you are sincere in your belief that these scientists are not smart. I was beginning to think tht Mod was a god, but here he shows us that he indeed just another human being I remember when my patience was at this level, just before it vanished into the distance never to be seen again... I have to say that my repsonse to this knuckle-dragging stupidity from Peg would be more profanity than dialogue, so all credit for somehow managing to keep this civil. And well done on some awesome posts in this thread - great stuff. Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Hi everyone,
I know that Peg is trying everyone's patience, you can see it in my own post as Percy a few messages above, but please let's keep it civil and avoid making personal comments.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024