|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Dredge writes: How can you expect me to understand this? It's written in a foreign language! Regardless, it would no doubt be based on facts that any creation-believing biologist would agree with. Such facts lead to either a conclusion of common descent or a conclusion of a common Creator, depending on which philosophical camp one belongs to. In other words, SIFTER will produce results regardless of how anyone thinks life came to be - because it depends on scientific facts, not on a subjective and irrelevant view of history. Please explain why a Common Designer would produce a nested hierarchy (i.e. a phylogeny).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Faith writes: Ha ha, so true. Same superstition but without the creative Mind, and they actually believe it! You are the only one who believes that life was magically poofed into being.
It's obviously impossible but "science" has no problem with such an impossibility while calling the reasonable explanation of a Creator a superstition. When did magical poofing become a reasonable explanation?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Dredge writes: Get a grip. No one knows what happened billions of years ago. Scientists who think they do are egotistical bs-artists. Once again, all you have is name calling. You can't counter the scientists, so you call the scientists names. Here's a bit of advice. Grow up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2271 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Curiously I think they are all equally good examples
Good, then you'll have no trouble picking one. Please give an example that is not behind a paywall.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2271 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
The Cambrian Explosion is a single occurrence that took millions of years. (Speaking in terms of an old Earth view) Similarly the occurrence of life could have taken millions of years with only one winner, as Dobzhansky says. The consequence is that all living things today have come from a last universal common ancestor. That at least is the consensus opinion of evolutionists today.
What if we do find a life form that could not have arisen from that ancestor? Not much really. Evolutionists would just say that there were at least two survivors from that initial origin of life. Creationists already believe in separate creation of different kinds.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Curiously I think they are all equally good examples
Good, then you'll have no trouble picking one. Please give an example that is not behind a paywall. Try the video for starters ...
Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II):
NOTE: this starts with a review of creationist claims, and the actual science starts at about 2:40 into the video. You can move the button ahead to the 2:40 mark and not miss any of the science. You can also turn off the sound, unless you are very fond of Beethoven's 9th symphony, as there is no narration. You don't need the sound, it is just Beethoven for background music, no voice-over. The first 2 minutes 40 seconds reviews typical creationist misconceptions and misinformation, a touch snide. Watch this one to skip the intro
enjoyby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2271 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined:
|
Nice fairy story, but that's all it is. The only molecule I saw named was Phosphoramidate DNA.
I found a paper by Szostak et al Synthesis of N3′-P5′-linked
Phosphoramidate
DNA by Nonenzymatic Template-Directed Primer Extension - PMC where in the discussion they say
quote: I.e it is a step towards but not an example of a self replicating molecule. Neither is it spontaneous polermization as the video claimed since it required a carefully constructed template. The paper didn't discuss the experimental set up but I suspect as in other cases a carefully controlled laboratory environment and carefully selected reagents is required to get favourable results. Since I asked for your best example and that has failed I need look no further.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: That would depend on what it was. If it was an obscure bacterium or something similar then there would likely be no problem for evolutionary theory. If it was a large multicellular animal or plant there would be questions about it's ancestry. For creationists, of course, the problem is that we don't find convincing evidence of separate creations. Such evidence should be quite widespread if creationism were true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
Why did God make a bunch of primates that are like humans in many ways, yet different? I don't know. It's a bit like asking, why did God make the sky blue and grass green? Or even, why did God make Dredge super-duper-intelligent and incredibly handsome? There are many mysteries. Please explain why a Common Designer would produce a nested hierarchy (i.e. a phylogeny). Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
It's not essential for the ToE that there is a single common ancestor.
Evolutionists would just say that there were at least two survivors from that initial origin of life. Creationists already believe in separate creation of different kinds. Creationists don't know what they believe, you can't even tell me if elephants nd tapirs are different kinds or why pigs and cows must be different kinds. Biologists are talking about common ancestors way down the evolutionary tree - billions of years ago - not in the top branches. Common ancestry is proven way below where creationists are required to put it and with billions of years difference. Don't pretend there's an equivalence.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Creationists have to tell untruths about scientific findings. That's all they have. CRR, the first forms of life as we know life were prokaryotes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Similarly the occurrence of life could have taken millions of years with only one winner, as Dobzhansky says. The consequence is that all living things today have come from a last universal common ancestor. That at least is the consensus opinion of evolutionists today. What if we do find a life form that could not have arisen from that ancestor? Not much really. Evolutionists would just say that there were at least two survivors from that initial origin of life. Right, so therefore it is not an assumption. Agreed?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Evolutionists would just say that there were at least two survivors from that initial origin of life. What the hell are you talking about? Don't you ever think before posting? Or are you so accustomed to feeding on bullshit that you automatically spout it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Nice fairy story, but that's all it is. The only molecule I saw named was Phosphoramidate DNA. Curiously I said start with the video. It's a nice introduction to the science of abiogenesis and the multiple aspects they are working on. It's a bit of a chicken and egg situation -- what came first the self-replicating genetic polymer or the cell membrane? Let's go to the next one:
quote: And follow that with the new addition to the thread:
quote:quote: I have not tried to access the paper with the free login they have yet. I'm sure someone here can download it and email it. So we see further evidence of evolutionary-like behavior in the molecule chemistry replication behavior ... variation and selection.
I found a paper by Szostak et al Synthesis of N3′-P5′-linked
Phosphoramidate
DNA by Nonenzymatic Template-Directed Primer Extension - PMC where in the discussion they say
quote:I.e it is a step towards but not an example of a self replicating molecule. Can you tell me the difference between:
So we now have two (of the many) self-replicating molecules listed in Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II) above ... are they "chemically self-replicating genetic polymers?" Inquiring minds want to know. Are they evolving? Are they life?
... The paper didn't discuss the experimental set up but I suspect as in other cases a carefully controlled laboratory environment and carefully selected reagents is required to get favourable results. Which just defines the parameters for possible ways for self-replicating molecules to develop. When you look at each of the different molecules, each with a different setup of controlled environment and selected reagents, then you begin to see the realm of the possible. What we can say is that it is not impossible to make self-replicating molecules. It's been done. It's old news. It's fact.
Since I asked for your best example and that has failed I need look no further. You asked for the best, but what I said was to start there, ... and now we have more ... you give up too easily, my friend, especially when it suits you. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
CRR writes:
Both are a demonstration that the chemistry is possible. I.e it is a step towards but not an example of a self replicating molecule. Neither is it spontaneous polermization as the video claimed since it required a carefully constructed template. You guys keep saying it's impossible. Then every time they demonstrate a step you say, "No wait, it's the next step." Then when that step is demonstrated you say, "No wait, it's the next step after that." After being wrong step after step, maybe it's time to reconsider your conclusion.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024