Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,812 Year: 3,069/9,624 Month: 914/1,588 Week: 97/223 Day: 8/17 Hour: 4/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The consequences of "Evolution is false"
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 151 of 210 (359808)
10-30-2006 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by nator
10-30-2006 8:42 AM


Re: Sorry to bug you, but...
Shrafinator...
I wrote:
One certainly cannot logically envision life as we know it spontaneously appearing.
And you asked;
quote:
Why not?
The answer to your question is in the logic part of my statement. I mean, we can imagine anything. All things are possible, but all things are not equally probable.
Can you logically believe that it is possible for a F22 Raptor to spontaneously appear?
If not, it is even more improbable that life could appear spontaneously. Because although we tend to look at life as natural, what it is turning out to be is something so technologically advanced, that we cannot even really see it for what it is.
It's like the movie 'I Robot'... We create these sophisticated robots and they take over the world. When in reality, androids are far more sophisticated than we give ourselves credit for. But just like in the movie, we have taken over and decided that we know best.
You know that I believe life was created nearly spontaneously, but by a creator, not by accident. You are free to believe otherwise if logic (is in your opinion), not a necessary component to a good explanation for life's appearence. If so, please do not try to explain with logic.
Then I said:
The difficulty for the naturalist, is that before natural selection can begin to pass any changes in a simple life form, to the next generation (and give us the opprotunity for more complex organisms), we must, by necessity, start with an organism capable of self-replication.
And you replied
quote:
No. What we need to start with is a molecule capable of self-replication...
We have not found one. The RNA World is assumed and accepted on faith as being the most likely candidate for a solution to the abiogenesis problem. But it is a bigger problem than we can imagine. That's why I said, (but in different terms) that the paradigm that Darwin postulated as a reasonable means for the theory of evolution has been turned on it's head.
RNA and DNA are not alive. They do not do anything but float around like any other molecule suspended in solution. But give them the correct organs and cell structure they need to replicate, that just by accident matches the DNA sequencing. Then add a mysterious spark (or breath), and WALLA... you got a self replicating animal.
But DNA by it's self is not alive. Nor is any other molecule. They are not even complex enough to call roadkill.
Life is incredibly brittle and fragile. And even if we can imagine (and we certainly can!) that it could acheive this stunt you suggest. We must first take for granted that an entire universe of ecosystem is in place to make it possible. All by accident?
I don't think so, and yes, if scientists can believe that, then I think they are in desperation (even unconsciously) wallowing in ignorance and half-truths.
They wouldn't be the first to notice a problem for their 'life-style' if they are wrong. And any self respecting android will fight tooth and nail to deny that he is not the superior life form in this universe.
Self respect... a subtle yet misunderstood power called pride!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by nator, posted 10-30-2006 8:42 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by nator, posted 10-30-2006 11:13 AM Rob has replied
 Message 153 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-30-2006 11:33 AM Rob has not replied
 Message 154 by crashfrog, posted 10-30-2006 11:36 AM Rob has not replied
 Message 155 by FliesOnly, posted 10-30-2006 11:43 AM Rob has not replied
 Message 156 by Straggler, posted 10-30-2006 11:56 AM Rob has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 152 of 210 (359826)
10-30-2006 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Rob
10-30-2006 9:52 AM


Re: Sorry to bug you, but...
quote:
We have not found one.
So, are you saying that because we do not have perfect knowledge right at this moment, all of the 150 years of research which confirms the Theory of Evolution is somehow negated?
That's like saying that String Theory negates the Atomic Theory of Matter.
quote:
I don't think so, and yes, if scientists can believe that, then I think they are in desperation (even unconsciously) wallowing in ignorance and half-truths.
They wouldn't be the first to notice a problem for their 'life-style' if they are wrong. And any self respecting android will fight tooth and nail to deny that he is not the superior life form in this universe.
Self respect... a subtle yet misunderstood power called pride!
So, is it your contention that scientists are incompetent at doing science?
Furthermore, you seem to imply that they are liars, knowing that they are perpetuating a falsehood.
Is this your position regarding the competency and integrity of scientists?
Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.
Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Rob, posted 10-30-2006 9:52 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Rob, posted 10-30-2006 8:31 PM nator has replied
 Message 159 by Rob, posted 10-31-2006 1:09 AM nator has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 153 of 210 (359832)
10-30-2006 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Rob
10-30-2006 9:52 AM


Re: Sorry to bug you, but...
I don't think so, and yes, if scientists can believe that, then I think they are in desperation (even unconsciously) wallowing in ignorance and half-truths.
They wouldn't be the first to notice a problem for their 'life-style' if they are wrong. And any self respecting android will fight tooth and nail to deny that he is not the superior life form in this universe.
Self respect... a subtle yet misunderstood power called pride!
Well, that's one explanation of why scientists disagree with you about science, and why you believe them to be "wallowing in ignorance and half-truths".
I can think of another explanation. My explanation involves scientists knowing more about science than you do. This explanation seems to be confirmed by the factual errors and errors of reasoning in your posts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Rob, posted 10-30-2006 9:52 AM Rob has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 154 of 210 (359834)
10-30-2006 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Rob
10-30-2006 9:52 AM


Re: Sorry to bug you, but...
Can you logically believe that it is possible for a F22 Raptor to spontaneously appear?
No, but then, the F22 Raptor is far more complex than the first living things.
A bit larger, too.
We have not found one.
Well, that's an erroneous claim. We're aware of hundreds of different molecules that are capable of catalyzing the formation of replicates.
Then add a mysterious spark (or breath), and WALLA... you got a self replicating animal.
There's no "spark" or breath, myserious or otherwise.
Just chemistry. Life is simply chemistry.
I don't think so, and yes, if scientists can believe that, then I think they are in desperation (even unconsciously) wallowing in ignorance and half-truths.
Gosh, you're so smart, maybe you can tell us where we're going wrong. It really is a shame you didn't decide to become a biologist. Lucky for us that doesn't seem to stop you from making sweeping pronouncments about the mental state and motivations of the men and women who labor in that field.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Rob, posted 10-30-2006 9:52 AM Rob has not replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 155 of 210 (359838)
10-30-2006 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Rob
10-30-2006 9:52 AM


Re: Sorry to bug you, but...
Rob writes:
Can you logically believe that it is possible for a F22 Raptor to spontaneously appear?
Last time I checked, F22 Raptors were incapable of reproducing. The ToE does not address how life began. The Theory applies only AFTER life emerged, so I still fail to see how Darwin's ideas have been turned on their heads.
Rob writes:
If not, it is even more improbable that life could appear spontaneously.
Really? You sure about this, Rob. I for one, would love to see you support this claim. First though, I'd ask that you define "life" and then more importantly, "spontaneous".
Rob writes:
It's like the movie 'I Robot'...
Actually, no, it's nothing like the movie "I Robot".
Rob writes:
You know that I believe life was created nearly spontaneously, but by a creator, not by accident.
That's all well and good, but again, it's completely unrelated to the ToE and to the OP as well.
Rob writes:
That's why I said, (but in different terms) that the paradigm that Darwin postulated as a reasonable means for the theory of evolution has been turned on it's head.
Yes, you did say this but you still have not backed it up in anyway. Nor does it concern itself with the underlying questions posed by Schraf in her OP.
Rob writes:
But give them the correct organs and cell structure they need to replicate, that just by accident matches the DNA sequencing. Then add a mysterious spark (or breath), and WALLA... you got a self replicating animal.
Do you know anything about DNA and RNA? "Give them the correct organs"? "Give them the correct cell structure"? What are you trying to explain here? We have cells and organs because of DNA and RNA, not the other way around.
Rob writes:
Life is incredibly brittle and fragile. And even if we can imagine (and we certainly can!) that it could acheive this stunt you suggest. We must first take for granted that an entire universe of ecosystem is in place to make it possible. All by accident?
I think that part of your problem is that you want to ascribe some sort of "goal" to evolution and by extension, life itself...that it couldn't just all be "an accident". Why not Rob? Why does it bother you so much to think that we are here as the result of some sort of “accident"?
Rob writes:
I don't think so, and yes, if scientists can believe that, then I think they are in desperation (even unconsciously) wallowing in ignorance and half-truths.
Oh wait, I see now. You just "don't think so" and believe that scientists are incompetent and/or liars. I see. Care to support this, cuz I'd feel pretty bad about myself if I thought that I were "wallowing in ignorance and half-truths" when you could so enlighten me.
Rob writes:
Self respect... a subtle yet misunderstood power called pride!
Wha?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Rob, posted 10-30-2006 9:52 AM Rob has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 156 of 210 (359846)
10-30-2006 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Rob
10-30-2006 9:52 AM


Re: Sorry to bug you, but...
We have left evolution (which you seem to accept) and moved onto abiogenesis. Oh well.....
RNA and DNA are not alive. They do not do anything but float around like any other molecule suspended in solution. But give them the correct organs and cell structure they need to replicate, that just by accident matches the DNA sequencing. Then add a mysterious spark (or breath), and WALLA... you got a self replicating animal.
I think you are confusing self replicating molecules and eukaryotic cells. The first life is postulated to be bacterial in form I believe. Full blown cells came much later.
Also you are arguing from a position of statistical improbability which is always dangerous. Lets say, for the sake of example, that there are 10 billion planets in the universe on which life could have arisen. If the chances of life occurring are a billion to one then statistically we would expect ten planets to have given rise to life.
Now I do not know how many planets there are capable of giving rise to life and nor do you but it is quite possibly a huge number so your argument of statistical incredulity falls down there.
Finally on a purely pragmatic note - If we followed your thinking we would just give up researching the beginnings of life. Well we already know God did it so what is the point?
With this attitude we would still think the planets are held in orbit aroud the Earth by means of Gods will, we would still be making sacrifices to fertility Gods to bless us with children and we would still think all life has always been more o less in it's present form.
Fortunately scientists are not inclined to accept non-natural answers to physical questions and so far they have done a pretty good job of supplying alternatives despite religiously inspired resistance at every turn. Long may it continue.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Rob, posted 10-30-2006 9:52 AM Rob has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 157 of 210 (359985)
10-30-2006 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by nator
10-30-2006 11:13 AM


Re: Sorry to bug you, but...
You stated and then asked:
Furthermore, you seem to imply that they are liars, knowing that they are perpetuating a falsehood.
Is this your position regarding the competency and integrity of scientists?
No, it is my position regarding the competency and integrity of mankind!
As Malcomb Muggeridge said, "the depravity of man is at once, the most emperically verifiable reality. Yet at the same time, it is the most intellectually resisted fact."
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

"As long as this deliberate refusal to understand things from above, even where such understanding is possible, continues, it is idle to talk of any final victory over materialism."
(C.S. Lewis - The Weight of Glory)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by nator, posted 10-30-2006 11:13 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by ringo, posted 10-30-2006 9:05 PM Rob has not replied
 Message 177 by nator, posted 11-02-2006 9:57 PM Rob has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 158 of 210 (359994)
10-30-2006 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Rob
10-30-2006 8:31 PM


Rob writes:
As Malcomb Muggeridge said, "the depravity of man is at once, the most emperically verifiable reality. Yet at the same time, it is the most intellectually resisted fact."
That cuts both ways - for those who study evolution and also for those who oppose it.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Rob, posted 10-30-2006 8:31 PM Rob has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 159 of 210 (360018)
10-31-2006 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by nator
10-30-2006 11:13 AM


To answer some of your other questions
You asked:
So, are you saying that because we do not have perfect knowledge right at this moment, all of the 150 years of research which confirms the Theory of Evolution is somehow negated?
Of course not! Tremendous discoveries have been made along the way. But none of it confirms evolution. Rather, it confirms natural selection as a real process that takes place after the origin.
Our understanding of many things has improved dramatically in the scientific sense, but man is essentially the same selfish savage that we see in ancient history.
Even Aldous Huxley (the humanist) observed in Brave New World that:
quote:
"We are living now, not in the delicious intoxication induced by the early success of science, but in a rather grisly morning after, when it has become apparent that what triumphant science has done hitherto is to improve the means for achieving unimportant or actually deteriorated ends."
There is no evolution. There is at best stagnation, or at worst devolution. It is civilized man that has killed more of his fellow men that his ancestors.
You also asked:
So, is it your contention that scientists are incompetent at doing science?
No, it is my contention that mankind is incompetent at being mankind, because they do not know what it means to be.
In fact, John Hopkins hosted a three day conference this last May, asking philosophers, scientists, psychologists, rationalists, existentialists, and even a token Christian the question, 'what does it mean to be human?'
I cannot understand how that question can be answered without knowing the purpose of our existence.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

"As long as this deliberate refusal to understand things from above, even where such understanding is possible, continues, it is idle to talk of any final victory over materialism."
(C.S. Lewis - The Weight of Glory)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by nator, posted 10-30-2006 11:13 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by kuresu, posted 10-31-2006 1:40 AM Rob has not replied
 Message 161 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-31-2006 2:00 AM Rob has not replied
 Message 162 by Straggler, posted 10-31-2006 6:30 AM Rob has replied
 Message 163 by FliesOnly, posted 10-31-2006 7:37 AM Rob has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 160 of 210 (360022)
10-31-2006 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by Rob
10-31-2006 1:09 AM


Re: To answer some of your other questions
Rather, it confirms natural selection as a real process that takes place after the origin.
There is no evolution
excuse, but this left me confused. You accept natural selection, a key part of evolution. yet you deny its existence.
Is this because you think that abiogenesis and evolution are one thing
or
is this because you thing that evolution must make things better?
As to the first possibility, that's a conflation of the issues, a misrepresentation just so that you can shoot evolution down.
As to the second possibility, evolution does not require things to get better. It only requires that which survives--and there are still bacteria, becuase they have found a niche in which they do well in. And once you find this, why change? Again, another misrepresentation of evolution.
As to the question concering what it means to be human, I have found that that requires a personal answer, applicable to noone but yourself. This does not mean that we suddenly become incompetent at doing other things. Am I incompetent at writing essays because I have no answer to the question? surely not. Do I not drive as well? again, no. Is my logic, my reasoning affected? no.

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Rob, posted 10-31-2006 1:09 AM Rob has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 161 of 210 (360026)
10-31-2006 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by Rob
10-31-2006 1:09 AM


Re: To answer some of your other questions
Of course not! Tremendous discoveries have been made along the way. But none of it confirms evolution. Rather, it confirms natural selection as a real process that takes place after the origin.
This is just weird.
The theory of evolution has been confirmed by a myriad pieces of evidence.
However, the theory of evolution merely tells us what life does, just as the theory of gravity tells us what matter does, and the theory of electricity tells us what electrons do.
The theory of evolution does not attempt to explain how life came to be, just as the theory of gravity does not explain how matter came to be, and the theory of electricity does not explain how electrons came to be.
Those are different questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Rob, posted 10-31-2006 1:09 AM Rob has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 162 of 210 (360047)
10-31-2006 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by Rob
10-31-2006 1:09 AM


Re: To answer some of your other questions
You really do seem to be confusing evolution and abiogenesis quite badly in your posts. Although obviously related in the widest sense they are not the same thing. It is quite possible to accept evolution whilst maintaining that the origins of life required a creator of some kind. Many people in fact do just this and this is arguably the position of most mainstream religious bodies.
Anyway regarding abiogenesis raher than evolution -
I cannot understand how that question can be answered without knowing the purpose of our existence
This does presuppose that tere IS a purpose which I would dispute as necessarily true.
Again I would ask you to consider the point I made earlier
You are arguing from a position of statistical improbability which is always dangerous. Lets say, for the sake of example, that there are 10 billion planets in the universe on which life could have arisen. If the chances of life occurring are a billion to one then statistically we would expect ten planets to have given rise to life.
Now I do not know how many planets there are capable of giving rise to life and nor do you but it is quite possibly a huge number so your argument of statistical incredulity falls down there.
On what basis do you assert that there is any purpose at all? On what basis are you so sure it is not just a question of statistics and probability?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Rob, posted 10-31-2006 1:09 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Rob, posted 10-31-2006 9:53 AM Straggler has not replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 163 of 210 (360057)
10-31-2006 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by Rob
10-31-2006 1:09 AM


Re: To answer some of your other questions
Rob writes:
Tremendous discoveries have been made along the way. But none of it confirms evolution.
Bull shit. The ToE is perhaps the most supported scientific theory we have, and is the very foundation of biology as a modern scientific discipline. Honestly, Rob, do know anything at all about evolutionary theory?
Rob writes:
Rather, it confirms natural selection as a real process that takes place after the origin.
Ok...so what's the problem? And you do realize that this statement basically contradicts your previous one . don’t you?
Rob writes:
Our understanding of many things has improved dramatically in the scientific sense, but man is essentially the same selfish savage that we see in ancient history.
Again I fail to see not only your point, but how this in any way affects the ToE. Ok, man is basically unchanged over the last couple thousand years...so what, what's your point? And how would this disprove evolution?
Rob writes:
No, it is my contention that mankind is incompetent at being mankind, because they do not know what it means to be.
You do realize that this makes absolutely no sense, nor does it have any true meaning. It's just a bunch of crap, written to make you appear "deep".
I wish you would stop with the philosophical drivel and attempt to stay on topic, which would be for you to explain how it is you think that biologists are incompetent scientists, but yet, at the same time are more than willing to benefit from the advances they have made in fields including (but certainly not limited to) medicines, food production, and genetics.
Rob writes:
I cannot understand how that question can be answered without knowing the purpose of our existence.
Our "purpose", if you want to consider it as such, would be to reproduce. That's about it, Rob...sorry.
But hey, if you want “more” out of life . if you want some grand plan and “purpose” to your existence, Rob, that’s great. However, you can continue to write a bunch of philosophical nonsense to justify your “special purpose” till the cows come home, but if you don’t reproduce (hey, maybe someday even you will find out what your “special purpose" is for ) then, in a biological sense, you have contributed nothing.
Edited by FliesOnly, : Edited to amend my feeble attempt at an obscure movie reference

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Rob, posted 10-31-2006 1:09 AM Rob has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 164 of 210 (360081)
10-31-2006 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by Straggler
10-31-2006 6:30 AM


Re: To answer some of your other questions
You asked:
On what basis do you assert that there is any purpose at all?
On what basis do you assert that there is none? Affirming a negative is pretty basic philosophical incompetance. We have no choice but to infer purpose.
C.S. Lewis had a way of keeping this concept simple to grasp:
quote:
"A universe whose only claim to be believed in rests on the validity of inference must not start telling us the inference is invalid..."
quote:
"If naturalism were true then all thoughts whatever would be wholly the result of irrational causes... it cuts its own throat."
But do not be offended by any of this, because if there is no purpose, then I cannot be wrong because there is no offense as my perceptions are simply the result of DNA and environment. And in that case, there is no point in considering ourselves reasonable, sense reason is really nothing more than pure subjective drivle.
If you think I am wrong, then you are imposing your morality onto me. But this notion of wrongness is very difficult to get rid of don't you think?
quote:
"All men alike stand condemned, not by alien codes of ethics, but by their own, and all men therefore are conscious of guilt." (C.S.Lewis / the problem of pain)
quote:
"When you are arguing against Him you are arguing against the very power that makes you able to argue at all." (C.S. Lewis / Mere Christianity)
Isaiah 1:18 - Show Context
"Come now, let us reason together," says the Lord. "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Straggler, posted 10-31-2006 6:30 AM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-31-2006 10:08 AM Rob has not replied
 Message 166 by Archer Opteryx, posted 10-31-2006 10:13 AM Rob has replied
 Message 167 by FliesOnly, posted 10-31-2006 10:47 AM Rob has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 165 of 210 (360085)
10-31-2006 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Rob
10-31-2006 9:53 AM


You asked:
On what basis do you assert that there is any purpose at all?
On what basis do you assert that there is none? Affirming a negative is pretty basic philosophical incompetance. We have no choice but to infer purpose.
Or to put it another way:
You asked:
On what basis do you assert that there are any flying pigs at all?
On what basis do you assert that there is none? Affirming a negative is pretty basic philosophical incompetance. We have no choice but to infer flying pigs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Rob, posted 10-31-2006 9:53 AM Rob 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