Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8871 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-13-2018 10:15 PM
218 online now:
Tanypteryx (1 member, 217 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Post Volume:
Total: 841,908 Year: 16,731/29,783 Month: 719/1,956 Week: 222/331 Day: 98/43 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
Author Topic:   why 'evolutionism' is a religion
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 31 of 45 (2371)
01-18-2002 2:58 AM


Although most of John Paul's assertions have been addressed, there is one that seems to have slipped by the wayside.
quote:
We haven't conducted an experiment to substantiate endosymbioses...

There is no need to conduct an "experiment" to substantiate endosymbiosis. It has been observed in nature. I can think of three completely different modern organisms off the top of my head without even researching that are endosymbionts:

1. Probably the most famous is Mixotricha paradoxa, a proctist consisting of a symbiotic colony of 5 different bacteria living in symbiosis within a larger organism. There are a whopping variety of proctists in various stages of endosymbiosis. (See, for example, this article.

2. An entire family of multicellular organisms, the Cnidaria, are colony animals consisting of formerly free-living cells. (See, for example, Shostak, S. (1993) "A Symbiogenetic Theory for the Origins of Cnidocysts in Cnidaria". Biosystems 29:49-58)

3. Lichens are an endosymbiotic family of organisms consisting of blue-green algae and a fungus. The algae provides energy for the amalgam from photosynthesis and secretes an acid that breaks down minerals for use by the fungus. The fungus provides a membrane "home" for the algae insuring moisture and protection - even in the dryest environment. (Pick up any biology textbook...)

You really need to do some of your own research rather than simply cutting and pasting from creationist websites. You might actually learn something.


Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by mark24, posted 01-18-2002 5:52 AM Quetzal has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3143 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 32 of 45 (2373)
01-18-2002 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Quetzal
01-18-2002 2:58 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:

Although most of John Paul's assertions have been addressed, there is one that seems to have slipped by the wayside. "We haven't conducted an experiment to substantiate endosymbioses..." There is no need to conduct an "experiment" to substantiate endosymbiosis. It has been observed in nature. I can think of three completely different modern organisms off the top of my head without even researching that are endosymbionts:

1. Probably the most famous is Mixotricha paradoxa, a proctist consisting of a symbiotic colony of 5 different bacteria living in symbiosis within a larger organism. There are a whopping variety of proctists in various stages of endosymbiosis. (See, for example, this article.


Fascinating stuff! A eukaryotic protist with no mitochondria, but five bacteria living symbiotically within the cell.

Thanks for the link Quetzal.

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-18-2002]

[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-18-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Quetzal, posted 01-18-2002 2:58 AM Quetzal has not yet responded

    
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 45 (2459)
01-19-2002 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by gene90
01-14-2002 11:21 AM


"I see that the Creationist, unable to substantiate Creationism as a science, must now attempt to label evolution as a religion in a desperate bid to make the two seem to be equals."
--Join us in the 'Why creation science isn't science' thread, I creation science stands on science, and to lable creationists as unscientific is immidiatly flawed and refuted.

-------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by gene90, posted 01-14-2002 11:21 AM gene90 has not yet responded

  
?????
Inactive Junior Member


Message 34 of 45 (33750)
03-06-2003 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by John Paul
01-14-2002 9:40 AM


Though you need faith to belive in evolution or any religion, evolution is a theory not a relion. You don't try to prove a religion, you just belive.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by John Paul, posted 01-14-2002 9:40 AM John Paul has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by nator, posted 03-07-2003 9:02 AM ????? has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12561
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 35 of 45 (33760)
03-06-2003 11:46 AM


Thread moved here from the The Great Debate forum.
    
nator
Member (Idle past 118 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 36 of 45 (33838)
03-07-2003 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by ?????
03-06-2003 10:19 AM


Actually, faith is not required to accept any scientific theory; only evidence.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by ?????, posted 03-06-2003 10:19 AM ????? has not yet responded

    
Jeptha
Unregistered


Message 37 of 45 (34421)
03-14-2003 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by gene90
01-14-2002 11:24 AM


But isn't creationism really falsifiable?? I view it as such. For example, all one would have to accomplish would be to show that abiogenesis could, and probably did, occur. You would glean my attention rather quickly.

When we weigh the probabilities against amino acids forming to produce even a single protein (I can back this up with Roger Olsenís calculations if anyone wishes me to bore them to death) and then ponder the astronomical odds against the first cell forming on its on from a primordial ooze, I canít comprehend that any free thinker could actually contemplate any other theory than creationism seriously.

What if Dembskiís Explanatory Filter did NOT show design in a flagella in a ratio of about 1:10125? That would certainly begin to give me at least some faith in the possibility of abiogenesis.

What if I could show evidence, agreeable to all interested parties, that the Second Law would NOT have prevented complex macroevolution?

The list really grows fairly long in very tangible reasons of why I must choose creationism over the other possibilities.

The mind of the evolutionist has always fascinated me. I like them as people, they have great minds, usually a great sense of humor, but how they cannot seem to take the probability math seriously that suggests creationism is the leading probability of our existence completely escapes me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by gene90, posted 01-14-2002 11:24 AM gene90 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by compmage, posted 03-15-2003 3:51 AM You have not yet responded
 Message 39 by derwood, posted 03-15-2003 3:40 PM You have not yet responded
 Message 40 by Peter, posted 03-31-2003 10:07 AM You have not yet responded
 Message 44 by crashfrog, posted 04-01-2003 4:02 PM You have not yet responded

    
compmage
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 38 of 45 (34445)
03-15-2003 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Jeptha
03-14-2003 9:15 PM


Jeptha writes:

But isn't creationism really falsifiable?? I view it as such. For example, all one would have to accomplish would be to show that abiogenesis could, and probably did, occur. You would glean my attention rather quickly.

What would then stop you from claiming that god used abiogenisis to create life? An allpowerful being can do ANYTHING and that is exactly why creationism is not falsifiable.

Jeptha writes:

When we weigh the probabilities against amino acids forming to produce even a single protein (I can back this up with Roger Olsenís calculations if anyone wishes me to bore them to death) and then ponder the astronomical odds against the first cell forming on its on from a primordial ooze, I canít comprehend that any free thinker could actually contemplate any other theory than creationism seriously.

How did Roger Alsen calculate those odds? All of these types of calculations I have seen have based on unfounded assumtions and were therefore invalid.

Then also if you think that a finite cell has [some huge number] odds agains forming, what do you think the odds of an infinite being would be? Rationally, assuming these calculation are valid, you have to accept that ANY finite structure has FAR more chance of arrising than ANY infinite being.

Jeptha writes:

What if Dembskiís Explanatory Filter did NOT show design in a flagella in a ratio of about 1:10125? That would certainly begin to give me at least some faith in the possibility of abiogenesis.

Evidence against one 'theory' is not evidence for another.

Jeptha writes:

What if I could show evidence, agreeable to all interested parties, that the Second Law would NOT have prevented complex macroevolution?

A creationist finally realised that the SLOT doesn't prevent evolution. I congratulate you.

Jeptha writes:

The list really grows fairly long in very tangible reasons of why I must choose creationism over the other possibilities.

When evaluating a theory it is best to look for evidence supporting or refution that theory. Theories don't win by default. So, do you have any supporting evidence for creation?

Jeptha writes:

The mind of the evolutionist has always fascinated me. I like them as people, they have great minds, usually a great sense of humor, but how they cannot seem to take the probability math seriously that suggests creationism is the leading probability of our existence completely escapes me.

We don't take it seriously because it is flawed.Even if it we not, the probabilities against and infinite being would be far greater, making any finite object or creature infinitely more likely.

------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Jeptha, posted 03-14-2003 9:15 PM Jeptha has not yet responded

    
derwood
Member
Posts: 1455
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 39 of 45 (34471)
03-15-2003 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Jeptha
03-14-2003 9:15 PM


some folks just don't learn...
What if I could show evidence, agreeable to all interested parties, that the Second Law would NOT have prevented complex macroevolution?

see: www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=11&t=52&p=3 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=11&t=52&p=3">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=11&t=52&p=3


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Jeptha, posted 03-14-2003 9:15 PM Jeptha has not yet responded

    
Peter
Member (Idle past 1871 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 40 of 45 (35910)
03-31-2003 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Jeptha
03-14-2003 9:15 PM


The Problem with Probabilities....
Throw a dice six times.

On which throw will a six show on top?

The above is the problem with probabilities.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Jeptha, posted 03-14-2003 9:15 PM Jeptha has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Joralex, posted 04-01-2003 1:35 PM Peter has responded

    
Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 45 (36020)
04-01-2003 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Peter
03-31-2003 10:07 AM


Problem (?) with Probabilities?
"Throw a dice six times.

On which throw will a six show on top?

The above is the problem with probabilities."

**************************************************************

I wouldn't call it a "problem" - it's more of a limitation (I'll assume that that's what you meant).

But then, mathematicians recognize this limitation and so should you. While you are correct in noting this limitation, you shouldn't toss the baby out with the bathwater. What I mean is that a limitation doesn't render something completely useless.

Specifically, as you say, probability math doesn't allow the answer to your question (on which toss does the six come up?) except with an associated error bar - not very useful. But this same math does allow us to be extremely confident (essentially certain) that two-hundred consecutive sixes will not come up on two-hundred consecutive tosses of a fair die.

Couple this result with the concept of 'probabilistic resources' and we have a very powerful tool for addressing abiogenesis within the naturalistic worldview.

In Christ,
Joralex


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Peter, posted 03-31-2003 10:07 AM Peter has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-01-2003 2:06 PM Joralex has not yet responded
 Message 43 by PaulK, posted 04-01-2003 3:08 PM Joralex has not yet responded
 Message 45 by Peter, posted 04-02-2003 4:29 AM Joralex has not yet responded

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 5525 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 42 of 45 (36022)
04-01-2003 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Joralex
04-01-2003 1:35 PM


Re: Problem (?) with Probabilities?
quote:
But this same math does allow us to be extremely confident (essentially certain) that two-hundred consecutive sixes will not come up on two-hundred consecutive tosses of a fair die.
Nice try but no coconut. The "same math" that "does allow us to be extremely confident (essentially certain)" also allows that if we make "two-hundred consecutive tosses of a fair die" often enough, two-hundred consecutive sixes will come up.

[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 04-01-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Joralex, posted 04-01-2003 1:35 PM Joralex has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14482
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 43 of 45 (36024)
04-01-2003 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Joralex
04-01-2003 1:35 PM


Re: Problem (?) with Probabilities?
THe most powerful tool is useless unless you are able to apply it.

The probability of abiogenesis is at this time unknown and unknowable, and if we ever get to the point where it can be known it will be because of scientific investigation of the possibilities.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Joralex, posted 04-01-2003 1:35 PM Joralex has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 45 (36027)
04-01-2003 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Jeptha
03-14-2003 9:15 PM


When we weigh the probabilities against amino acids forming to produce even a single protein (I can back this up with Roger Olsenís calculations if anyone wishes me to bore them to death) and then ponder the astronomical odds against the first cell forming on its on from a primordial ooze, I canít comprehend that any free thinker could actually contemplate any other theory than creationism seriously.

I'm not sure the odds matter at all. I mean, it only has to happen once, right? And once it happens (i.e. you have the minimal organism, able to manage chemical reations and reproduce) evolution takes over. The "odds" arguments I've always read produce the odds of abiogenesis occuring in one abiogenetic event. Sure, those are probably astronomically low. But if you have these events occuring over and over again, it approaches certainty that it will happen.

Conceivably, "near-miss" abiogenesis events (that don't produce the minimal organism, but could) could occur several times a second given the presence of the appropriate chemicals. Like I said, it only has to be successful once. It's like a random-walk: while the odds of being at any position on the Road to Abiogenesis are pretty small, given sufficient time, it's certain you will arrive at the destination (succesful abiogenesis). (I assume that if you're willing to argue from probabilistic math, you're familiar with random walks and the Gambler's Paradox, etc. If not I suggest you may wish to aquaint yourself with a little more math before you try to bring down science with it.)

So, the question for creationists is: given that the odds of abiogenesis are non-zero (as apparently you accept), and nature could try several times a second for billions of years, how can you NOT believe it happened?

------------------
Epimenedes Signature: This is not a signature.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Jeptha, posted 03-14-2003 9:15 PM Jeptha has not yet responded

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1871 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 45 of 45 (36068)
04-02-2003 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Joralex
04-01-2003 1:35 PM


Re: Problem (?) with Probabilities?
The probability does not preclude that on a fair die
we always throw a six.

It states that it is unlikely to occur ... extremely unlikely,
but anything with a finite probability CAN happen every time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Joralex, posted 04-01-2003 1:35 PM Joralex has not yet responded

    
Prev12
3
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018