Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 92 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-18-2018 12:43 PM
201 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, Aussie, AZPaul3, DrJones*, GDR, Larni, PaulK, ringo, Tangle (9 members, 192 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 844,386 Year: 19,209/29,783 Month: 1,154/2,043 Week: 199/507 Day: 27/83 Hour: 4/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
3031
32
33343536Next
Author Topic:   TOE and the Reasons for Doubt
Peg
Member (Idle past 2912 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 466 of 530 (537276)
11-28-2009 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 462 by Parasomnium
11-27-2009 4:19 PM


Re: Darwin about falsification
Parasomnium writes:

You can't seriously expect a theory that was formed before all of those breakthroughs to remain unchanged after them. It has nothing to do with Darwin being philosophical, and everything with science making progress.

and this is what I find so curious

todays discoveries have been so profound with regard to the complexity of life and the universe, yet the idea that it all just happened by blind chance and undirected persists

of course not all scientist believe it was undirected, but a good majority of them do and they promote it as evolution.

But with regard to Darwin, i dont disrespect the man, i disrespect his theory. I can understand why he came up with the theory though and i dont think it was because of scientific discovery.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 462 by Parasomnium, posted 11-27-2009 4:19 PM Parasomnium has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 469 by Parasomnium, posted 11-28-2009 5:00 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 471 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-28-2009 5:43 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 278 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 467 of 530 (537278)
11-28-2009 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 463 by Peg
11-28-2009 2:21 AM


Re: Darwin about falsification
Peg writes:

But you have to admit that modern science has shown Darwins theory to have flaws and this has led to much of it being revamped or discarded.


Do you doubt gravity? Because that has been more completely revamped than evolution was.

I used the quote from Darwin because moleculuar biology proves that Darwins fear is a reality.

But it isn't a reality.

Modern biochemistry has revealed just how complex living things really are.

And that they could have evolved step by step.

Cells can only function if all the parts are complete and working properly. Or IOW, the first complex cell must have appeared instantaneously as a complete functioning unit.

Wrong. Modern biology shows the exact opposite.

the Cell puts darwins theory to bed so to speak.

No it doesn't It confirms again how right he actually was.

life did not arise by chance and evolve in the way he and other philosophers described it.

Everything about modern biology shows it did.


I hunt for the truth

I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead


This message is a reply to:
 Message 463 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 2:21 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 468 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 3:19 AM Huntard has not yet responded

    
Peg
Member (Idle past 2912 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 468 of 530 (537280)
11-28-2009 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 467 by Huntard
11-28-2009 2:54 AM


Re: Darwin about falsification
Huntard writes:

Wrong. Modern biology shows the exact opposite.

ok, explain what the exact opposite is you are refering to


This message is a reply to:
 Message 467 by Huntard, posted 11-28-2009 2:54 AM Huntard has not yet responded

    
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 679 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 469 of 530 (537294)
11-28-2009 5:00 AM
Reply to: Message 466 by Peg
11-28-2009 2:46 AM


Re: Darwin about falsification
Peg writes:

Parasomnium writes:

You can't seriously expect a theory that was formed before all of those breakthroughs to remain unchanged after them. It has nothing to do with Darwin being philosophical, and everything with science making progress.

and this is what I find so curious

todays discoveries have been so profound with regard to the complexity of life and the universe, yet the idea that it all just happened by blind chance and undirected persists

It's not just blind chance, you've been told that a million times. But aside from that, the core idea of Darwin's theory has been vindicated by later discoveries, most notably the last two I mentioned in my previous post.

But with regard to Darwin, i dont disrespect the man, i disrespect his theory. I can understand why he came up with the theory though and i dont think it was because of scientific discovery.

I can only say: read his books.


"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 466 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 2:46 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16073
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 470 of 530 (537301)
11-28-2009 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 447 by Peg
11-26-2009 7:02 AM


Re: Creation website much?
I wonder what darwin would think today

He'd be elated to learn that after 150 years of trying, the people with the strongest motivation to find an example of such an organ have still not come up with one example that will withstand a moment's scrutiny.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 447 by Peg, posted 11-26-2009 7:02 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1084 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 471 of 530 (537307)
11-28-2009 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 466 by Peg
11-28-2009 2:46 AM


Re: Darwin about falsification
But with regard to Darwin, i dont disrespect the man, i disrespect his theory. I can understand why he came up with the theory though and i dont think it was because of scientific discovery.

How can you disrespect the theory when you don't even understand the basics of that theory?

Peg, this is disengenuous, bigoted, prejudice and wrong in its highest form.

Darwin spent his ENTIRE life committing his life to scientific discovery. He spend hours upon hours studying life from microscopic to the macroscopic and even with his limited scientific tools of the day came up with one of the greatest scientific discoveries in human history. You can't even come close to the amount of research he did into this scientific field so who are you to judge?

I agree with Parasomnium. If you are going to cast stones at least read the man's work first.


“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous.” - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World


This message is a reply to:
 Message 466 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 2:46 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2077 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 472 of 530 (537315)
11-28-2009 6:10 AM
Reply to: Message 465 by Peg
11-28-2009 2:32 AM


Re: Clarification
Well then see the answer I gave to that interpretation of the question back in Clarification (Message 460).

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 465 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 2:32 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 473 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 7:05 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

    
Peg
Member (Idle past 2912 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 473 of 530 (537332)
11-28-2009 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 472 by Wounded King
11-28-2009 6:10 AM


Re: Clarification
Wounded King writes:


Well then see the answer I gave to that interpretation of the question back in Clarification (Message 460).

Then the answer is no. There are some parts whose removal will compromise the cells viability, but there are others whose removal will still allow the cell to function. Depending on the specific flavour of irreducible complexity you prefer this either does or doesn't make a living cell irreducibly complex.

ok so maybe you can explain which parts of the cell can be removed without causing the cell to cease functioning and reproducing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 472 by Wounded King, posted 11-28-2009 6:10 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 482 by NosyNed, posted 11-28-2009 11:23 AM Peg has responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1626 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(2)
Message 474 of 530 (537341)
11-28-2009 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 463 by Peg
11-28-2009 2:21 AM


Re: Darwin about falsification
Modern biochemistry has revealed just how complex living things really are. Cells can only function if all the parts are complete and working properly. Or IOW, the first complex cell must have appeared instantaneously as a complete functioning unit.

Peg, this is so easy, why are you not getting it?

The first complex cells were produced from the last ever-so-slightly-less-than-complex cells. And the earlier not-quite-so-complex cells came from the ever-so-slightly-less-than-not-quite-so-complex cells.

Ok, let's turn it around. Here's a possible scenario for the first cells - they were just 'bubbles' with a lipid membrane or wall and with sea water on the inside. Pure mineral. Free lipids in the sea would be drawn into the membrane and the 'bubble' would grow. Turbulence in the water would cause large bubbles to pinch off into two bubbles. This is the very start. How complex is this?

These bubbles then become great containers for organic molecules, which pass in and out of the bubble. Some of these organic molecules can self-polymerise (form long chanins), and then become trapped inside the 'bubbles' as they are too large to migrate through the lipid membrane. Some of polymers could even duplicate themselves. But so far they don't "do" anything - they just sit inside their lipid containers.

But some polymers could be produced that are useful - say they catalyse the formation of more lipids. Now, those bubbles with lipid-producing polymers will grow more, as they have more lipids, and will then split more readily because they are larger, spreading more lipid bubbles about with the lipid-making polymers inside. And so life begins...

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 463 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 2:21 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 475 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 8:34 AM cavediver has responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 2912 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 475 of 530 (537352)
11-28-2009 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 474 by cavediver
11-28-2009 8:01 AM


Re: Darwin about falsification
cavediver writes:

And so life begins...

it sounds simple enough

so simple in fact that scientists should be able to reproduce that simple process in a lab, right?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 474 by cavediver, posted 11-28-2009 8:01 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 476 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-28-2009 8:41 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 477 by lyx2no, posted 11-28-2009 8:42 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 478 by cavediver, posted 11-28-2009 8:43 AM Peg has responded

    
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1084 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 476 of 530 (537355)
11-28-2009 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 475 by Peg
11-28-2009 8:34 AM


Re: Darwin about falsification
it sounds simple enough

so simple in fact that scientists should be able to reproduce that simple process in a lab, right?

They are it just takes time. We are attempting to recreate in years what occurred over billions of years.

Scientists have already recreated the lipid cell membrane of cells and are working on the protein gates and other fundamental structures of cells.

It is just a matter of time.


“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous.” - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World


This message is a reply to:
 Message 475 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 8:34 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2699 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 477 of 530 (537356)
11-28-2009 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 475 by Peg
11-28-2009 8:34 AM


Test Tubes
so simple in fact that scientists should be able to reproduce that simple process in a lab, right?

All the test tubes in the world wouldn't hold a 100 trillionth of an ocean, Peg. Nor all the biologist in the world observe them for a half billion years. Other then that, yeah, you're right.


It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
— Anon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 475 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 8:34 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1626 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 478 of 530 (537357)
11-28-2009 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 475 by Peg
11-28-2009 8:34 AM


Re: Darwin about falsification
so simple in fact that scientists should be able to reproduce that simple process in a lab, right?

It's a work in progress

What I wrote is based on Jack W. Szostak's ideas - who has just won the 2009 Nobel for Medicine - check his website here


This message is a reply to:
 Message 475 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 8:34 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 479 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 8:50 AM cavediver has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 2912 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 479 of 530 (537360)
11-28-2009 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 478 by cavediver
11-28-2009 8:43 AM


Re: Darwin about falsification
so when they say they are working on a 'synthetic cellular system' does this mean they will create something artificially, or will they be using something that is already existing??
This message is a reply to:
 Message 478 by cavediver, posted 11-28-2009 8:43 AM cavediver has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 481 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-28-2009 11:00 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2172 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 480 of 530 (537390)
11-28-2009 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 464 by Peg
11-28-2009 2:28 AM


Re: Darwin about falsification
it would be good if that happened in reality, but with regard to the TOE, it has not happened even though its been adequately shown that the living cell cannot evolve.

Could you show some evidence that living cells cannot evolve.


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

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 464 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 2:28 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 483 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 9:11 PM bluescat48 has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
3031
32
33343536Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018