Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 155 (8122 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-19-2014 9:53 PM
125 online now:
JonF, Percy (Admin) (2 members, 123 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: taiji2
Happy Birthday: AdminPhat
Post Volume:
Total: 736,248 Year: 22,089/28,606 Month: 1,176/1,410 Week: 378/524 Day: 45/36 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
5Next
Author Topic:   Artifical life
agent_509
Junior Member (Idle past 900 days)
Posts: 16
Joined: 05-22-2010


Message 46 of 71 (561706)
05-22-2010 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by hotjer
05-22-2010 4:15 PM


I could not remember the term abiogenesis, so I used the term atheistic Darwinism instead. because Darwinism without a creator involved would require abiogenesis. I know that ToE is used to explain diversity of life, but I prefer Darwinism, since plain evolution and ToE often get mistaken for one another.

ToE is what it is, a theory, however it is in its own since, a belief, since while widely accepted, is very controversial, and does not have any substantial proof.

Note that my whole post wasn't just about the origin of life, all I was trying to say, is that it does not give any evidence to support abiogenesis or ToE.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by hotjer, posted 05-22-2010 4:15 PM hotjer has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by lyx2no, posted 05-22-2010 5:18 PM agent_509 has not yet responded
 Message 48 by subbie, posted 05-22-2010 5:22 PM agent_509 has responded
 Message 51 by hotjer, posted 05-22-2010 5:44 PM agent_509 has not yet responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 1148 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 47 of 71 (561707)
05-22-2010 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by agent_509
05-22-2010 5:06 PM


Eponism
Hy agent_509 and welcome to EvC

… but I prefer Darwinism…

How are you with Straboism, Copernicism and Wegenerism?


"Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." — Mohmoud Ahmadinejad
This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by agent_509, posted 05-22-2010 5:06 PM agent_509 has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3350
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 48 of 71 (561709)
05-22-2010 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by agent_509
05-22-2010 5:06 PM


ToE is what it is, a theory, however it is in its own since, a belief, since while widely accepted, is very controversial, and does not have any substantial proof.

You seem to be trying to denigrate the ToE by calling it a theory. You obviously don't understand what a scientific theory is.

It is widely accepted, you got that much right. The only reason it is controversial is because of a vocal minority of people who reject it because it conflicts with their religious beliefs. There is no controversy in science about the validity of the ToE.

It in fact has more evidence supporting it than just about any other theory you'd care to mention. An in depth discussion of this evidence would be off topic for this thread, but I will refer you to this site which contains a comprehensive discussion of 29 different types of evidence that support it.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by agent_509, posted 05-22-2010 5:06 PM agent_509 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by agent_509, posted 05-22-2010 5:48 PM subbie has responded
 Message 67 by IchiBan, posted 05-25-2010 9:23 AM subbie has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15881
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 49 of 71 (561711)
05-22-2010 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by agent_509
05-22-2010 3:44 PM


Welcome to the fray, agent_509

(you'll notice that I prefer the word Darwinism, has less baggage. There are multiple types of evolution, and evolution doesn't have to be inconsistent with design.)

Curiously, it doesn't matter at all what you think, as science is defined by the scientists, and if you are going to talk about the science then you need to use the terminology and meanings that are used in science.

Use different terminology, or try to adopt different meanings from what is used in science, and you are only deluding yourself that you are talking about the science and not some misinterpretation based on confirmation bias and preconceptions.

Evolution is the change in the types and frequencies of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities.

If anything, I see that it took our intelligent species years to be able to replicate a very basic cell using coding that already existed and was already known, while an Atheistic Darwinist theory would suggest that such an event could have occurred by complete random chance out of non-living matter.

Amazingly chemistry is not completely random.

Message 46 I could not remember the term abiogenesis, so I used the term atheistic Darwinism instead.

Which just demonstrates how wrong you can be when you try to misuse terminology and attach different meanings rather than discuss the science with the proper terminology and meanings.

Enjoy.

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.

For other formatting tips see Posting Tips

If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):


... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it.


we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by agent_509, posted 05-22-2010 3:44 PM agent_509 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by agent_509, posted 05-22-2010 5:51 PM RAZD has responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2284
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 50 of 71 (561712)
05-22-2010 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by agent_509
05-22-2010 3:44 PM


Hi Agent and since you're new, welcome to EvC Forum.

I don't see what evidence this event gives to either side, intelligent design, or Darwinism.

I agree. It does nothing much for either "side" (and there are rather more than just two "sides" in this debate). It wasn't meant to. The experiment wasn't about providing evidence for evolution. It was about making an artificial genome.

The cell was created by an intelligent person, using already existing code. Therefore this doesn't show that life can arise from non-living matter.

Agreed. That's because the experiment wasn't intended to show that life arose from non-living matter. That was not even on their minds. They inserted the genome they created into a pre-existing cell; that would rather undermine it's value as an abiogenesis experiment, no? But that's fine, because this wasn't an abiogenesis experiment.

I'm not quite sure why creationist members seem so keen to talk about abiogenesis in this thread. This was not about abiogenesis.

If anything, I see that it took our intelligent species years to be able to replicate a very basic cell using coding that already existed and was already known, while an Atheistic Darwinist theory would suggest that such an event could have occurred by complete random chance out of non-living matter.

Completely wrong. There need be nothing atheistic about what you call "Darwinism". Plenty of theists believe in evolution. Also, I am curious as to where exactly "Atheistic Darwinist theory" suggests that life should be popping up all over the place. Perhaps you could help me out; who suggests that and where?

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by agent_509, posted 05-22-2010 3:44 PM agent_509 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by hooah212002, posted 05-22-2010 11:20 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded

    
hotjer
Member (Idle past 977 days)
Posts: 113
From: Denmark
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 51 of 71 (561714)
05-22-2010 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by agent_509
05-22-2010 5:06 PM


ToE is not controversial, only according to the minority creationists. At least, here in Denmark, and most of the world, creationists are minority and do not have any academic background or relation to science. Most people here in Denmark (and probably Scandinavia) do not know what a creationist is.

Evidence for ToE is a whole other story so I will not talk further about that in this topic.

I did note your post was not just about the origin of life, but you wrote it like it was related to ToE, at least it seemed to me, and therefore I responded in the way I did. Anyways, despite different view on life we seem to agree that this artificial life is not related to ToE (yet - it might evolve) and as it is now, it does not support neither ToE or ID or Creationism

Edited by hotjer, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by agent_509, posted 05-22-2010 5:06 PM agent_509 has not yet responded

    
agent_509
Junior Member (Idle past 900 days)
Posts: 16
Joined: 05-22-2010


(1)
Message 52 of 71 (561715)
05-22-2010 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by subbie
05-22-2010 5:22 PM


you are extremely wrong on the controversy of the science, and btw, Darwinism is a widely accepted term for ToE. No informed person would disagree that some things have changed over time, however I completely reject the idea that all the complexity and diversity we see today was created by mutation and natural selection.

I'll read that site in time, but as for now I will simply place one of my own evidences against evolution. irreducible complexity. The flagellar motor is a good example of irreducible complexity. If you were to remove one piece from it, it would stop working. The odds of such genetic mutations taking place to create all those proteins at once are so high, it's impossible.

also, the Cambrian explosion is quite a problem in the fossil record...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by subbie, posted 05-22-2010 5:22 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by hotjer, posted 05-22-2010 5:53 PM agent_509 has not yet responded
 Message 55 by subbie, posted 05-22-2010 6:17 PM agent_509 has not yet responded
 Message 56 by Coyote, posted 05-22-2010 6:17 PM agent_509 has not yet responded
 Message 57 by lyx2no, posted 05-22-2010 6:36 PM agent_509 has not yet responded

  
agent_509
Junior Member (Idle past 900 days)
Posts: 16
Joined: 05-22-2010


Message 53 of 71 (561717)
05-22-2010 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by RAZD
05-22-2010 5:27 PM


I'll ignore most of your useless comments and move on to what you said about chemistry not being completely random. I would love to hear you explain how the first cell could have arisen without a creator, or random chance.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by RAZD, posted 05-22-2010 5:27 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by RAZD, posted 05-22-2010 7:40 PM agent_509 has not yet responded

  
hotjer
Member (Idle past 977 days)
Posts: 113
From: Denmark
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 54 of 71 (561718)
05-22-2010 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by agent_509
05-22-2010 5:48 PM


Old stuff
yeah yeah, irreducible complexity

take a look at this link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQQ7ubVIqo4

Edited by hotjer, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by agent_509, posted 05-22-2010 5:48 PM agent_509 has not yet responded

    
subbie
Member
Posts: 3350
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 55 of 71 (561722)
05-22-2010 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by agent_509
05-22-2010 5:48 PM


I'll read that site in time, but as for now I will simply place one of my own evidences against evolution. irreducible complexity.

IC is bullshit. Even Behe has acknowledged that the concept is flawed. Behe defines an IC system as one "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."

The problem is that evolution very seldom proceeds by the addition of fully functioning parts. Instead, what is often seen is changes in the function of different parts (exaptation), or sometimes, elimination of useless parts. Thus, the very concept is a strawman. It has very little to do with how evolution actually occurs.

The flagellar motor is a good example of irreducible complexity. If you were to remove one piece from it, it would stop working.

You're obviously well behind the curve on this one. This site compiles a number of different problems with the claim that the flagellar motor is IC. Among other points, it shows long list of bacteria that operate quite well in the absence of one or more of the parts that Behe guessed were necessary. It also shows numerous examples of bacteria that use the flagellum in other ways, providing evidence of exaptation.

The odds of such genetic mutations taking place to create all those proteins at once are so high, it's impossible.

Quite meaningless, since evolution doesn't proceed by big jumps, but small steps. Moreover, every creo discussion of odds assumes that there is a target result that evolution is trying to achieve. This assumption has no basis in reality.

{AbE

you are extremely wrong on the controversy of the science

Evolution is accepted by 95% of all practicing scientists. By what definition do you term that a controversy?

{End edit}

BTW, welcome to the site. If you are interested in learning, this is the place to do it. On the other hand, if you are only here to preach ideas about evolution that you heard from some creo or other, you are going to be very frustrated and disappointed by how many misconceptions, errors and lies most creo resources contain.

Edited by subbie, : No reason given.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by agent_509, posted 05-22-2010 5:48 PM agent_509 has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4707
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 56 of 71 (561723)
05-22-2010 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by agent_509
05-22-2010 5:48 PM


Drummed up controversy
you are extremely wrong on the controversy of the science

No so. The controversy is between mainstream science and anti-science fundamentalists trying to drum up controversy.

and btw, Darwinism is a widely accepted term for ToE...

Among fundamentalists maybe. Whenever a poster comes here and starts throwing the term "Darwinism" about, odds are about 10,000:1 that it is a fundamentalist rather than a scientist.

also, the Cambrian explosion is quite a problem in the fossil record...

Perhaps you could tell us why you think this?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by agent_509, posted 05-22-2010 5:48 PM agent_509 has not yet responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 1148 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 57 of 71 (561730)
05-22-2010 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by agent_509
05-22-2010 5:48 PM


Darwinism is a widely accepted term for ToE.

You need to get out more. It's only widely accepted by creationists. Everyone else has a calendar with 2010 on it.

I will simply place one of my own evidences [irreducible complexity] against evolution.

That's your own, is it? You've got a lot of people ripping you off for the credit on that. Your plagiarizers spread it around here so often that it's been given a number: CB200. Michael Behe's book is making a bundle with your idea. Don't waste your time with us. Go after him.

also, the Cambrian explosion is quite a problem in the fossil record...

Ouch! got me with ol' CC300 did ya'?


"Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." — Mohmoud Ahmadinejad
This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by agent_509, posted 05-22-2010 5:48 PM agent_509 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15881
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 58 of 71 (561733)
05-22-2010 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by agent_509
05-22-2010 5:51 PM


Hi again agent_509,

I'll ignore most of your useless comments ...

Denial is one of the first stages of cognitive dissonance when confronted with information that contradicts pet beliefs.

Cognitive dissonance is resolved by recognizing facts for what they are and altering you opinions to be consistent with the evidence. Until this happens, cognitive dissonance will remain, because reality is not a matter of opinion.

... and move on to what you said about chemistry not being completely random.

Which is a fact: atoms only combine with other atoms in certain very specific manners and only with certain other atoms.

I would love to hear you explain how the first cell could have arisen without a creator, or random chance.

As abiogenesis is not the topic of this thread, that would be innappropriate here. Note that this forum sets a lot of stock on staying on topic on each of the threads, and that if you want to discuss this you can either (a) find an existing thread on abiogenesis or (b) start one.

Is Abiogenesis a fact? and Stanley Miller debunked? are two threads that are still open, or go to Proposed New Topics to post new topics.

Message 52
you are extremely wrong on the controversy of the science, and btw, Darwinism is a widely accepted term for ToE.

Again, this is false.

(1) there is no controversy in science that (a) evolution is an established science, (b) the process of evolution occurs, and (c) the theory of evolution has not been invalidated.

(2) Darwinism as used within the science of evolution is limited to describing Darwin's theory of descent with modification through the action of natural selection, while evolution in general, and the ToE in particular, incorporate several additional mechanisms that result in the change in type and frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunity. Mutation of genes is one that was unknown in Darwin's time. Neutral drift is another.

You don't need to take my word for it, you can see what Darwins theory is from this page
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/...election/selection.html

And you can see what the modern concept of evolution is from this page
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/...ciation/speciation.html

Note the differences, and also that neither page uses the term "Darwinism".

You can also go to this page and search for "Darwinism" on the whole site
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIntro.shtml

Darwinism is a term that is most often misused by creationists that seem to be adverse to discussing evolution within the terminology of science, either because they don't understand it or don't want to understand it.

Now you may think that using the term "Darwinism" strengthens your argument, but it doesn't. It weakens it. Either the term is used correctly to refer only to Darwin's theory, in which case you are only discussing the effect of natural selection and not the rest of evolution, or you are misusing the term and confusing fact with fantasy. In either case the conclusions you reach are necessarily invalid, because you are not dealing with evolution.

No informed person would disagree that some things have changed over time, ...

And biological evolution is not just the change is some things over time, it is the change in hereditary traits over time by a number of specific mechanisms and processes.

Biological evolution has been observed and is a fact of life. It can be seen in life all around you.

... however I completely reject the idea that ...

And amusingly, your underinformed opinion is useless in being able to alter reality in any way.

... all the complexity and diversity we see today ...

It was Darwin's insight that descent from common ancestors along with the adaptation of beneficial traits in populations from generation to generation was sufficient to explain "the complexity and diversity we see today" ... and there is no evidence that has been found since then to contradict this.

... was created by mutation and natural selection.

Which is not what is claimed by evolution and the modern theory of evolution.

Scientific theory takes observed facts and then makes a testable hypothesis, forms predictions based on the hypothesis and tests those predictions to see it they hold up.

Today we observe that evolution - the change in type and frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunity - has occurred and is a scientifically established fact.

We also observe that the process of evolution in isolated populations of a parent species results in different evolution in these offspring populations, and that in many instances that this different evolution has resulted in reproductive isolation, where the daughter populations no longer interbreed when they have the opportunity. This process is called speciation, and while it is rare compared to general evolution, it is also a process observed to occur and is a scientifically established fact.

In simple terms the modern theory of evolution can be defined as the theory that evolution and speciation are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the world around us, from history, from prehistory, from archaeology, paleontology, geology, genetics, chemistry and other sciences.

The fossil evidence is a test of this theory: it is the evidence of what actually occurred in the past. There is no fossil evidence that contradicts this theory.

The genetic evidence is a test of this theory: it is the evidence of hereditary descent from ancestors to modern organisms. There is no genetic evidence that contradicts this theory.

Both these lines of evidence are (1) independent and (2) capable of forming patterns of descent from ancestral populations. The patterns of descent from ancestral populations that emerges from each line of evidence is a nested hierarchy of descent from common ancestor populations. The overall pattern that emerges from the fossil evidence matches the overall pattern derived from the genetic evidence, and this match is powerful validation of the pattern of descent from common ancestor populations, as there is absolutely no reason for these independently derived patterns from independent evidence to match without common ancestry being involved.

Again, this is off-topic on this thread, and if you want to discuss this further you can either (a) find an existing thread on evolution or (b) start one.

If you start one on "the controversy of evolution" it would be most fun.

I'll read that site in time, but as for now I will simply place one of my own evidences against evolution. irreducible complexity. The flagellar motor is a good example of irreducible complexity.
...
also, the Cambrian explosion is quite a problem in the fossil record...

And you may want to include this page in your reading so you don't keep making foolish assertions that have already been refuted:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
or
http://www.answersingenesis.org/...pic/arguments-we-dont-use

They're called PRATTs for a reason.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by agent_509, posted 05-22-2010 5:51 PM agent_509 has not yet responded

  
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3178
Joined: 08-12-2009
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 59 of 71 (561746)
05-22-2010 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Granny Magda
05-22-2010 5:27 PM


I'm not quite sure why creationist members seem so keen to talk about abiogenesis in this thread.

Because it closes the gap for the god of the gaps.


"A still more glorious dawn awaits
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise
A morning filled with 400 billion suns
The rising of the milky way"
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Granny Magda, posted 05-22-2010 5:27 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded

    
IchiBan
Member (Idle past 1369 days)
Posts: 88
Joined: 07-07-2008


(1)
Message 60 of 71 (561762)
05-23-2010 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by mike the wiz
05-22-2010 7:08 AM


Re: Creation "science" again
I have been on science forums where they 'talk the science' of their specialty's.

The evolutionists always appeal to science, but they are never doing science as evidenced by your conversations with a few here. You look at the post history and you will see little if any science in there.

They are doing religion, their religion, and they are evangelists for their religion on a crusade.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by mike the wiz, posted 05-22-2010 7:08 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Huntard, posted 05-23-2010 4:15 AM IchiBan has not yet responded
 Message 62 by Son, posted 05-23-2010 4:19 AM IchiBan has not yet responded
 Message 64 by bluescat48, posted 05-23-2010 10:03 AM IchiBan has not yet responded

  
Prev123
4
5Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014