Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,579 Year: 2,836/9,624 Month: 681/1,588 Week: 87/229 Day: 59/28 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Grand Theory of Life
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4423 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 31 of 77 (539695)
12-18-2009 6:11 PM


Hi Meldinoor, Magda, and Britanican
ok, so at the moment it would be fair to say that the ToE doesn't necessitate a "simple to complex" history of life. When i used the word biology in my post I was refering to the study of living organisms today. In this there does not seem to be evidence for the "simple to complex" scenario, although meldinoor does mention homologies (happy to go into this in more detail sometime), but the main emphasis is upon what is found in the fossil record. As Meldinoor says
Our understanding about how life originated, or of its simple beginnings, does not stem directly from the theory of evolution. The TOE does not predict that life must begin at a certain level of complexity. Indeed, it would function equally well in a world where life was created 6000 years ago.
So when i said
arphy writes:
So in other words, it isn't the present biological change that causes you to favour the naturalistc explanation, but rather you rely on interpretations of "ancient" relics to make your case.
and magda replies
magda writes:
You've lost me here. Natural explanation for what exactly? We use the fossil record for evidence regarding ancient life. What else would you have us use?
I am not saying that you cannot use the fossil record but rather that you only allow one interpretation of the evidence. The fossil record is much more subjective than for example natural selection which is something we can study in the here and now. Therefore I think both slevesque and me are quite keen to show in the great debate thread that historical evidence fits the biblical picture better than the evolutionary "simple to complex" idea.
Putting aside the fossil record for the moment, let us turn to meldinoor's comment that was echoed by magda and Britanican as well
meldinoor writes:
Science can ONLY deal with naturalistic explanations. There is no way to test for another explanation.
Take it as a hypothetical situation if you want to, but what would you say if there is undeniable evidence that evolution has worked from complex to less complex organisms. If we begin with highly complex organisms, would it still be a reasonable position for a scientist to try and find a naturalistic explanation for their origin? I do not not think that it is impossible for science to demonstrate the need for an intelligent designer. If we came at the fossil record from this point of view would we not see the fossil record differently? Especially if an intelligent designer (i.e.God) has told us a plausible explanation for why the fossils exist as they do (i.e. the flood)? How is this not science? It is both testable and falsifiable.
Yet most scientist only like to entertain the "simple to complex" idea because in doing so it seems to make a naturalistic explanation for abiogenesis more plausible. Why? Because the mantra that science can only deal with purely naturalistic ideas and must not entertain avenues that lead to a supernatural explanation is pushed in our society. For more on the self serving "rules" of what is science see Science: The rules of the game - creation.com and ‘It’s not science’ - creation.com
also getting back to the thread topic
magda writes:
The point is that evolution and abiogenesis are (under current knowledge) not wedded to each other - they are separate fields of study, both subgroups of the field of biology.
They may be seen as seperate but they influence each other quite a bit i.e. mechanisms used in naturalistic evolution are sometimes used to try and explain naturalistic abiogenesis. So in a sense they are often already wedded i.e. many naturalistic abiogenesis theories wouldn't exist without taking into account naturalistic "simple to complex" evolutionary ideas.

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by bluescat48, posted 12-18-2009 6:40 PM Arphy has not replied
 Message 35 by Granny Magda, posted 12-18-2009 7:44 PM Arphy has replied
 Message 36 by Coyote, posted 12-18-2009 8:45 PM Arphy has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


(1)
Message 32 of 77 (539696)
12-18-2009 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by ICANT
12-17-2009 1:20 PM


Re: Life
ICANT writes:
cavediver writes:
Evolution stands and falls on its own evidence. It doesn't require and it doesn't imply abiogenesis.
Would you agree that for evolution to take place you would first need a life form?
ICANT, when Cavediver mentioned the word 'evolution', he used it as shorthand for 'the theory of evolution', he did not mean the actual process of evolution. How do I know this? The key is in the phrase "its own evidence". Theories need evidence, processes do not. Now that we know we're talking about the theory of evolution, Cavediver's second sentence should begin to make sense. The theory of evolution doesn't require abiogenesis: first life could have been engineered by God, aliens or time travelling scientists. Even if God engineered life, as long as he engineered it with the property of heredity built into it, and with the possibility of imperfect replication, the theory of evolution explains what would happen next. So the theory of evolution doesn't require and doesn't imply abiogenesis. Therefore your question is irrelevant, because it refers to the process of evolution, not the theory. Everybody would agree that for the process of evolution to take place you would first need a life form, but given that life exists, the theory of evolution doesn't care how it got there.
Would you agree that if abiogenesis is impossible there would be no life form to evolve?
I find it very strange that you ask this because it's hard to believe that you agree with this yourself. If abiogenesis were proven to be impossible, we would have to conclude that life must have originated in some other way, if only because of the simple fact that life exists. Your explanation would probably be the God of Genesis, I would perhaps theorize aliens, or simply acknowledge ignorance, but the facts are that (1) life exists, and (2) it can, and has evolved.

"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 11 by ICANT, posted 12-17-2009 1:20 PM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 33 of 77 (539697)
12-18-2009 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Modulous
12-18-2009 4:53 PM


There are two broad possibilities.
1. The evidence shows that things have 'devolved' from highly complex organisms.
So, if we disproved natural abiogenesis - this would not change the evidence that life has 'devolved' - correct?
2. The evidence shows that things have 'evolved' from more simple creatures.
My contention is that the same applies here. If we disproved natural abiogenesis - this would not change the evidence that life has 'evolved'. Would you agree with this?
Yes, i think so. The point is that a natural abiogenesis only works with number 2. So, if life has 'evolved' then natural and supernatural explanations are still in competition with each other. However if things 'devolved' natural abiogenesis options don't even really have a chance. however, if we take a biblical stance then this has no shot in scenario 2 (unless you feel that butchering the text beyond recognition is ok (which i don't)). This is also why I feel that the intelligent design movement is too plastic at the moment. While making some good points, it is too vague.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Modulous, posted 12-18-2009 4:53 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4180 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 34 of 77 (539698)
12-18-2009 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Arphy
12-18-2009 6:11 PM


Therefore I think both slevesque and me are quite keen to show in the great debate thread that historical evidence fits the biblical picture better than the evolutionary "simple to complex" idea.
Show some evidence, please.
Where in the bronze aged stories, of the Bible, does it show anything that would resemble the fossil record?

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 31 by Arphy, posted 12-18-2009 6:11 PM Arphy has not replied

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


Message 35 of 77 (539701)
12-18-2009 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Arphy
12-18-2009 6:11 PM


I Demand My Pre-Cambrian Rabbit!
When i used the word biology in my post I was refering to the study of living organisms today. In this there does not seem to be evidence for the "simple to complex" scenario, ...
But when you say "simple to complex", you appear to be talking about the entire history of life. That is why you are getting answers about natural history and the fossil record. What did you expect? We can hardly make our inferences about ancient life from the observation of current life alone. If you talk about natural history, you are inevitably going to involve the fossil record.
I am not saying that you cannot use the fossil record but rather that you only allow one interpretation of the evidence. The fossil record is much more subjective than for example natural selection which is something we can study in the here and now.
For the geological evidence to fit the Bible would require not only that the fossil record be "subjective", but that it be a collective hallucination suffered by thousands of geologists.
There is not only one story in geology - our recent discussion of disagreements about the evolution of birds can attest to that. There are areas of contention and much incomplete knowledge. To try and shoehorn what we do know into a Biblical framework however is doomed and deluded.
I do not not think that it is impossible for science to demonstrate the need for an intelligent designer. If we came at the fossil record from this point of view would we not see the fossil record differently? Especially if an intelligent designer (i.e.God) has told us a plausible explanation for why the fossils exist as they do (i.e. the flood)? How is this not science? It is both testable and falsifiable.
And it has been tested and falsified. Flood geology had its day. It failed. It just didn't fit the facts.
Yet most scientist only like to entertain the "simple to complex" idea because in doing so it seems to make a naturalistic explanation for abiogenesis more plausible. Why? Because the mantra that science can only deal with purely naturalistic ideas and must not entertain avenues that lead to a supernatural explanation is pushed in our society.
You keep repeating this nonsense and then have the nerve to accuse others of having a "mantra".
Scientists only entertain the "simple to complex" view of natural history because that is what the evidence tells them. Disagree? Where have you ever seen a scientist saying that she believes in "simple to complex" evolution because it makes it easier to believe in natural abiogenesis? I have never heard any such statement. Perhaps you have psychic powers that allow you to read the minds of scientists and read the secret motivations they won't admit in public?
The fact is that the fossil record shows simple life first, then gradually more complex life over hundreds of millions of years. If you disagree, then where is your evidence? Where are the Pre-Cambrian rabbits? Where is the ancient complex life? I want my Pre-Cambrian rabbit fossil! It's all very well to say "Oh the interpretation is wrong", but you have to show how your interpretation makes more sense. You have not done so and until you can show us an ancient fossil of a complex creature, until you can bring me my Pre-Cambrian rabbit, you have nothing but hot air.
They may be seen as seperate but they influence each other quite a bit i.e. mechanisms used in naturalistic evolution are sometimes used to try and explain naturalistic abiogenesis.
Probably because abiogenesis experiments have revealed natural selection-like mechanisms at work in their proposed pre-biotic molecules. Again you see, the basis here is evidence, not ideology.
So in a sense they are often already wedded i.e. many naturalistic abiogenesis theories wouldn't exist without taking into account naturalistic "simple to complex" evolutionary ideas.
Yes, theories that don't take reality into account will tend to fail miserably. A theory of naturalistic abiogenesis that began with complex life would be laughably at odds with what is observed, so it doesn't exist.
Overall, you seem to keen to believe that scientists and sceptics believe in evolution or abiogenesis because it allows us to disbelieve in the god of the Bible. You are quite mistaken in this I assure you. We don't need any help in disbelieving your god. He is very easy to dismiss, without any recourse to evolution.
Mutate and Survive

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Arphy, posted 12-18-2009 6:11 PM Arphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Arphy, posted 12-19-2009 12:16 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 36 of 77 (539704)
12-18-2009 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Arphy
12-18-2009 6:11 PM


Varia
I do not not think that it is impossible for science to demonstrate the need for an intelligent designer.
Bring empirical evidence. Your need does not constitute empirical evidence. And all of these scenarios that IDers come up with, that can just as easily be explained by natural means, do not constitute empirical evidence. See, for example, Behe's testimony at the Dover trial. He ended up with heap big egg on face because he was pushing a religious belief (disguised as irreducible complexity) and ignoring scientific explanations for the same phenomena--and those scientific explanations came back to haunt him. (You can't just ignore data when its inconvenient, as creationists are wont to do, as inconvenient facts don't just go away no matter how much you ignore them.)
Especially if an intelligent designer (i.e.God) has told us a plausible explanation for why the fossils exist as they do (i.e. the flood)? How is this not science? It is both testable and falsifiable.
1) To the degree that it can be tested by science, the biblical flood hypothesis has been falsified. The early creationist geologists, seeking to prove the flood, gave up nearly 200 years ago in the face of overwhelming geological evidence that the flood story could not have happened as described. Since then the evidence from a variety of different fields has led to the same conclusion. So, don't try to use the "plausible explanation for why the fossils exist as they do" when that explanation has long since been falsified by science. (Of course there are some who, for religious reasons, refuse to accept the evidence but that doesn't constitute proof of any kind.)
2) The intelligent designer is not "God" as that would make ID into religion instead of science. The intelligent designer, if such exists, must remain unknown. (Didn't you get the memo?)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Arphy, posted 12-18-2009 6:11 PM Arphy has not replied

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


Message 37 of 77 (539713)
12-19-2009 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Granny Magda
12-18-2009 7:44 PM


Re: I Demand My Pre-Cambrian Rabbit!
Hi magda
But when you say "simple to complex", you appear to be talking about the entire history of life.
I meant as in the present animals that we can study don't necessarily seem to be becoming more "complex".
Where have you ever seen a scientist saying that she believes in "simple to complex" evolution because it makes it easier to believe in natural abiogenesis? I have never heard any such statement.
Not everything is said out loud and not every choice is conscious. Even when there was a limited knowledge of the fossil record people in the past have still been very acceptive of the darwinian "simple to complex" evolution. What i am saying is that it has a certain amount of charm because it implies that everything can be explained through naturalistic functions. In other words it was attractive to many people. It is still attractive today as britanican writes in an earlier post:
britanican writes:
The evidence available to us paints an amazing picture of the past, one in which great beauty and diversity arose from humble beginnings. When I stop and think about the fact that so much amazing biological evolution has occurred on this tiny planet, and then look up at the stars and wonder what sort of beings may have arisen out there, I cannot help but feel transcendent. It is what you might call "a religious experience" for me (or the closest I am going to get to one anyway). I am astounded by the magnificence of this history of gradual change that allowed complex and intricate structures to arise from simplicity. It makes me feel "one with the universe".
I can't imagine a man-made origin myth coming anywhere close to the overwhelmingly elegent and beautiful truth as revealed to us through science. The story of creation as told in Genesis is really very dull and boring compared to the majesty of what actually happened.
If you disagree, then where is your evidence? Where are the Pre-Cambrian rabbits? Where is the ancient complex life? I want my Pre-Cambrian rabbit fossil!
You first show me why in flood geology we would expect to find a rabbit in pre-cambrian rock. To find a rabbit in such a place would be very unlikely in the flood geology model.
Probably because abiogenesis experiments have revealed natural selection-like mechanisms at work in their proposed pre-biotic molecules.
which favour more highly complex and more organic like arrangements of molecules?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Granny Magda, posted 12-18-2009 7:44 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Meldinoor, posted 12-19-2009 12:44 AM Arphy has not replied
 Message 39 by Coyote, posted 12-19-2009 1:14 AM Arphy has not replied
 Message 40 by Briterican, posted 12-19-2009 8:33 AM Arphy has not replied
 Message 41 by Granny Magda, posted 12-19-2009 9:27 AM Arphy has replied

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


Message 38 of 77 (539714)
12-19-2009 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Arphy
12-19-2009 12:16 AM


Eh, who should be giving evidence?
Arphy writes:
You first show me why in flood geology we would expect to find a rabbit in pre-cambrian rock
Since you're the one proposing flood geology, you should be the one explaining why rabbits aren't found in pre-cambrian rock. The rest of us "evolutionists" have already given our explanation, i.e. there were no rabbits.
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Arphy, posted 12-19-2009 12:16 AM Arphy has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 39 of 77 (539716)
12-19-2009 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Arphy
12-19-2009 12:16 AM


Re: I Demand My Pre-Cambrian Rabbit!
You first show me why in flood geology we would expect to find a rabbit in pre-cambrian rock. To find a rabbit in such a place would be very unlikely in the flood geology model.
Let's do a separate thread on flood "geology" and all its implications.
It is off topic here.
Besides which the early creationist geologists seeking to prove the flood gave up about 200 years ago.
But if you think there is any real evidence for a global flood as written in the bible, start a thread and we'll discuss the issue.
(ps. I have evidence from my own professional research that disproves the flood as it is written. Although it is not geology, I'll be happy to contribute that evidence at no extra cost.)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Arphy, posted 12-19-2009 12:16 AM Arphy has not replied

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


Message 40 of 77 (539731)
12-19-2009 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Arphy
12-19-2009 12:16 AM


Re: I Demand My Pre-Cambrian Rabbit!
Arphy writes:
What i am saying is that it has a certain amount of charm because it implies that everything can be explained through naturalistic functions. In other words it was attractive to many people. It is still attractive today as britanican writes in an earlier post
Let me be clear - my feelings of wonder about the universe, and a feeling of oneness with it, were inspired by an understanding of science, not the other way around. In other words I didn't decide in advance that naturalistic explanations would be fulfilling to me, I simply discovered that they were after investigation.
It's "Briterican" btw, not Britanican

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Arphy, posted 12-19-2009 12:16 AM Arphy has not replied

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


Message 41 of 77 (539734)
12-19-2009 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Arphy
12-19-2009 12:16 AM


Re: I Demand My Pre-Cambrian Rabbit!
Hey Arphy,
I meant as in the present animals that we can study don't necessarily seem to be becoming more "complex".
That strikes me as rather an odd statement. How much change do you expect to see? How much more complex do expect life to get and over how long a time? I also see problems with how you define "complex". I think we can both agree that a jaguar is more complex than cyanobacteria, but is an ibex more or less complex than an ocelot? Is a tuatara more or less complex than a poison dart frog? You see what I mean...
We see very little change in our lifetimes. that is in complete agreement with what the ToE predicts. In asking for a visible increase in "complexity" you are asking for something that the ToE never predicted.
Not everything is said out loud and not every choice is conscious.
Right. So you really do imagine that you know what I and others like me think better than we know ourselves. That is extraordinarily arrogant.
Even when there was a limited knowledge of the fossil record people in the past have still been very acceptive of the darwinian "simple to complex" evolution.
That is because much was already known about the ages geological strata and their fauna before Darwin published. In fact the ground work had been done by people like William Smith. The "simple to complex" progression you describe would have come as no surprise to Darwin, as he already would have been aware of it. Again, observations first, conclusions second.
What i am saying is that it has a certain amount of charm because it implies that everything can be explained through naturalistic functions.
What you imagine motivates others to believe in this progression is ultimately irrelevant. All that matters is evidence. I could easily make the same the criticism of Christianity; people only believe it because they find it comforting to do so. This has little or no bearing on whether Christ died for us on the cross, hmm?
You first show me why in flood geology we would expect to find a rabbit in pre-cambrian rock. To find a rabbit in such a place would be very unlikely in the flood geology model.
The rabbit is emblematic. Just in case you missed the reference, it comes from a comment attributed to J.B.S Haldane, who is supposed to have been asked what would falsify evolution. He grumpily replied "Rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian!".
The rabbit isn't the point. The point is the anachronism of finding a rabbit in a period so ancient that its supposed precursors had not even emerged themselves. This would blow the ToE out of the water. There are endless possibilities for such an observation. Grasses in the Devonian, birds in the Carboniferous, frogs in the Cambrian. I could literally go on al day naming anachronistic fossil/period combo's. The point is that none have ever been found. Not one.
Doesn't that tell you something? It does me. It's a strange kind of flood that deposits its detritus according to an allegedly erroneous time line that has not yet been dreamed up.
which favour more highly complex and more organic like arrangements of molecules?
I am no expert, but yes, I believe that is a fair statement.
Unfortunately, we seem to have drifted off-topic once again. I would be happy to continue the geology discussion in another thread though.
Mutate and Survive

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Arphy, posted 12-19-2009 12:16 AM Arphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Arphy, posted 12-22-2009 2:35 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3885 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 42 of 77 (539927)
12-20-2009 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Peg
12-16-2009 3:58 AM


life
Hi Peg!
In some way, the understanding of molecular biology does put evolution on shakey ground because even the simplest life forms are extremely complex making it highly unlikely that they developed without guidance in an organic soup.
I see you are getting ganged up on again; and I'm sure you are also very busy not celebrating anything this time of year. So I'm perfectly happy to be patient. But when you get the chance, could you tell me what you consider life?
I don't mean some confusing definition, what I need to know is where to draw the line. What is the least complex thing you consider life, and/or the most complex thing you would consider non-life, in other words.
Here, I will make it even easier. Are rats alive? How about frogs? Fish? Insects? Leafy plants? Ferns? Blue-green algae? Ricketsia? Archaea? Complex DNA viruses? Simple RNA viruses? PNA chains? Polypeptide micro-spheres? Liposomes? Catalytic reactions?
Note that all of these can reproduce themselves, quite well but never quite perfectly. All but the 2 parasites on the list, ricketsia and DNA viruses, can do it without the assistance of any other species. (These two can't do anything without a host, they become dormant.)
Showing where the line is to be drawn ought to move this part of the discussion over from talking-about-talking to actual substance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Peg, posted 12-16-2009 3:58 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Peg, posted 12-21-2009 6:52 AM Iblis has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4919 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 43 of 77 (539968)
12-21-2009 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Modulous
12-16-2009 9:58 AM


Huntard writes:
Seems like you know what the simplest life form possible is - not just the simplest presently living one.
i'm not going to speculate on varieties of simple life forms that 'may' have existed
I will mention bacteria (not virus's as they are not living) because even though they are incredibly small they are also very complex.
Molecular biologists have shown that the basic design of the cell system is virtually the same in all living systems from bacteria to mammals. Even these simplest life form require the same roles of DNA, mRNA and protein in order to survive. And its been shown that the protein synthetic machinery is practically the same in all cells. So in terms of their basic design, not even the simplest living systems, such as bacteria, can be thought of as being primitive and simple. One example is the smallest microbe found, the primitive riding dwarf, which has the amazing ability of living in boiling temperaturs...if it can do this, then it cannot be simple.
If this is what molecular biology has shown, then how is it possible that evolutionary science can continue to teach that life had a simple beginning? There is no evidence of a simple beginning.
Huntard writes:
1. Which scientists, which experiments?
how do they know that the primitive atmosphere lacked oxygen?
They know because experiments have shown that compounds such as amino acids are not stable in the presence of oxygen. Oxygen, as you know, is reactive and if there was a lot of oxygen in the atmosphere when amino acids were assembling, it would destroy the organic molecules as they formed.
The Italian physician Francesco Redi (1700's) comes to mind. His experiments proved that maggots appeared in rotten meat only after flies had laid eggs on it thus disproving the prevailing belief of spontaneous generation.
And im sure you know Louis Pasteur. He also performed experiments to determine whether tiny life forms could arise by themselves. He was able to show that even minute bacteria did not form in sterilized water protected from contamination.
And the Russian Alexander Oparin theorised that if the atmosphere was much different, life could possibly generate spontneously and in the
1950’s Stanley Miller attempted to test his theory and experimented with a flask. Apparently, producing some amino acids proved that Oparins theory was a possiblity.
and you may already know this, but at the 1996 International Conference on the Origin of Life, the journal Science reported that the nearly 300 scientists who attended were still unable to provide an answer to how DNA and RNA molecules first appeared and how they evolved into self-reproducing cells
Modulous writes:
I showed you how when theories that science has not connected together yet into one seemless whole, it is not a sign that the parts are gratuitously incorrect. When they connect, we don't throw out the ideas before hand.
But complete theories do get thown out. You've heard of the phlogiston theory?
It was a scientific theory introduced in the 1700's and was proved completely false.
The astromomer Ptolemy devised the geocentric theory which was widely accepted until the 16th century. Copernicus and Gallileo proved it completely wrong and it was thrown out.
Darwin's 'Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection' is still widely accepted as fact, yet there is no evidence of a simple beginning.
Im saying this because some theories ARE proved wrong, or are perported to be factual before the evidence has been presented. If it turns out that there could not have been a primordial soup which caused life to exist, then the theory of evolution will need to revised too. It will have to change its ideas on the ancestral link between species because if abiogenesis is impossible, then so will be the ancestral link.
I just dont think its fair to teach something that cannot be proved yet...and I know you'll say that evolution does not require abiogensis, but it does when we are told that humans came from apes and all species are related.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Modulous, posted 12-16-2009 9:58 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by bluescat48, posted 12-21-2009 7:06 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 46 by Huntard, posted 12-21-2009 7:18 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 47 by Modulous, posted 12-21-2009 10:47 AM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4919 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 44 of 77 (539970)
12-21-2009 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Iblis
12-20-2009 4:49 PM


Re: life
Hi Iblis,
i will reply in about 6 days...i'm heading out of town so this will be my last post for now
my mum has no internet!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Iblis, posted 12-20-2009 4:49 PM Iblis has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4180 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 45 of 77 (539972)
12-21-2009 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Peg
12-21-2009 6:44 AM


but it does when we are told that humans came from apes and all species are related.
Got news for you, Humans are Apes.
Also spontaneous generation of fully formed organisms and abiogenesis of life are not the same thing.

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 43 by Peg, posted 12-21-2009 6:44 AM Peg has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024