Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 116 (8752 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-27-2017 10:53 PM
116 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: DeliverUsFromEvolution
Post Volume:
Total: 809,118 Year: 13,724/21,208 Month: 3,206/3,605 Week: 548/933 Day: 46/40 Hour: 1/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
34Next
Author Topic:   From protobionts to living cells
Huntard
Member
Posts: 2856
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 16 of 48 (497309)
02-03-2009 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Cedre
02-03-2009 8:04 AM


Re: From protobionts to living cells - a response to Huntard
Dear Huntard more than mere words will do to take me in, I want evidence laid out on the table before me to inspect for myself - hardcore evidence.

What? Just like you provide for your statements?

All this:

And natural selection does not qualify as an evidence neither does cell mutation as neither process has been witnessed in the lab or in the wild to add new information to an indiviuals genome or to a population's gene pool. If I'm mistaken then present me with evidences to the contrary. Natural selection cannot accommodate too large changes to an indivual or to a population, though it can result in great variety but such changes are confined to a species, it has never been observed to transform an indivual into something else so that it can no longer be called its former self. We know of dog varieties or even cat varieties but we have never known of a dog that for example became a cat and vice versa.
Mutations are harmful,fullstop. Though some who are desperate will say that Most are harmful living room for a few useful ones. How can anything random and sudden be beneficial especially when it comes to life-forms, everything in the body is ordered and systematic, the body is composed of millions of cells one could dub as micro-factories, that work together in an neat manner to produce useful results. A mutant cell is out of control and wayward it violates regulation and disturbs normal body function and growth. Other than this what other evidences have been used to back the theory of evolution? close to nothing.

Is absolutely without evidence. Yet you expect me to get you some? If you come up with evidence for your claims, I'll come up with evidence for mine.

Oh, and calling Wounded King ignorant on mutations wasn't very wise, he's an actual scientist looking into that kind of stuff, he's done the experiments and seen the results.


I hunt for the truth
This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Cedre, posted 02-03-2009 8:04 AM Cedre has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 111 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 17 of 48 (497314)
02-03-2009 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Cedre
02-03-2009 7:18 AM


Re: From protobionts to living cells - a response to Bluejay and Mr Jack
Hi, Cedre.

You write well: is English your first language?

Cedre writes:

However as you and your colleague Mr Jack may already be aware evolution, as a process can only take affect if it has something on which to have an affect on...

This is certainly true. And, it is precisely why we have to distinguish evolution from abiogenesis: because evolution can't happen until after life has been formed.

In science, we have to partition our studies into specific theories, because each physical phenomenon is distinct from the others. The creation of a lifeform is different from the alteration of that lifeform into something new.

Thus, the two phenomena must be treated separately, and must be described by different theories.

-----

Cedre writes:

...that being so the theory hasn't yet made a clean escape from the daunting question of how the first cell came about from abiotic material.

It makes a clean escape from this for the same reason that gravity makes a clean escape from the question of how protons and neutrons stick together to form the nucleus of an atom---it is formulated to explain something else.

-----

Cedre writes:

It turns out that the best Mr Jack and his colleagues can do and have been doing since 1882 is twiddle with a series of hypothesises.

Of course. And, neither Mr Jack nor any of his colleagues has said anything differently. When Mr Jack says something like, “we know abiogenesis has happened in the past,” he is not actually supporting a specific theory: “abiogenesis” actually accurately describes any hypothesis that posits a beginning to life.

Let me explain a bit.

I am a theistic evolutionist: this means that I am a proponent of evolution who still believes in God. Although I do not currently embrace any tenet of the creationist worldview, I maintain that a divine initiation of life is still a possbility. However, even if God created the first life, the Theory of Evolution can still be correct if that God-created life evolves over time by means of diversification and selection.

Now, let’s assume for a moment that God created the first life form from the dust (as is written in the Bible). This would still be considered Abiogenesis, because what was once inanimate is now alive*. The only scenario that does not involve Abiogenesis is one in which life has always existed, throughout the infinite past, and will always be, throughout the infinite future, and thus, was never created or originated in any way.

*”Life,” in this case, refers to a biological entity, not to a quality of spiritual existence. Spiritual “life,” if it exists, undoubtedly obeys it’s own set of rules. It does not fit the definition of “life” used to formulate biological theories and hypotheses such as Evolution and Abiogenesis, and so, is not relevant to them.

-----

Cedre writes:

I must wonder is the scientific community afraid to admit the wrongness of this (abiogenesis) hypothesis, because the only other alternative is creation, so they deliberately mislead the masses and kill off their faith in a higher being.

Be very careful making this sort of statement.

Here’s an opposing statement with the same flavor, only directed at you:

“The creationist community is afraid to admit the wrongness of creationism, because the only other alternative is evolution, so they deliberately mislead the masses and kill off their ability to think rationally and coherently.”

Is this true? Are you deliberately trying to mislead people in order to destroy their belief in the Theory of Evolution? Are you afraid of evolution?

I don’t think so: I think you are entirely sincere about your arguments, and I feel that I have so far treated your arguments as such. Please extend the same courtesy to your opponents. Insinuating ulterior motives, even in a non-commital fashion, is wholly inconducive to the spirit of logical debate.


-Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Cedre, posted 02-03-2009 7:18 AM Cedre has not yet responded

Cedre
Member (Idle past 1043 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 18 of 48 (497388)
02-04-2009 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Wounded King
02-03-2009 9:56 AM


Re: Mutations
As beguiling as your offer sounds dear Wounded King, for the time being I"ll have to pass it up (not chicken out), instead I think that I'll linger a while longer on the subject of origins. However, I couldn't help notice that my refering you to a page has been an altogether otiose undertaking. I wonder how much evidence it will take to convince you people. Concerning the page, either you didn't analyse the sound evidence that is provided in it that clearly show the infeasibility of mutations to bring forth useful adaptations, or it may well be you've been blinded from seeing the evidence which is right before you by the dogmatic views of darwin followers.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Wounded King, posted 02-03-2009 9:56 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Huntard, posted 02-04-2009 1:42 AM Cedre has not yet responded
 Message 20 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-04-2009 3:29 AM Cedre has responded

  
Huntard
Member
Posts: 2856
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 19 of 48 (497389)
02-04-2009 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Cedre
02-04-2009 1:13 AM


Re: Mutations
As beguiling as your offer sounds dear Wounded King, for the time being I"ll have to pass it up (not chicken out), instead I think that I'll linger a while longer on the subject of origins. However, I couldn't help notice that my refering you to a page has been an altogether otiose undertaking. I wonder how much evidence it will take to convince you people. Concerning the page, either you didn't analyse the sound evidence that is provided in it that clearly show the infeasibility of mutations to bring forth useful adaptations, or it may well be you've been blinded from seeing the evidence which is right before you by the dogmatic views of darwin followers.

The reason you don;t get a reactoin to your link is because we don;t debate links here. I will say this about it however, Answers in Genesis is NOT a reliable resource for the facts about evolution. Try this Talkorigins article on mutations to see where they go wrong. Yes, I know, no debating of links, so this is the last I'll say about it. Start that new thread, or have Woundedking start it up if you're ready for it.


I hunt for the truth
This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Cedre, posted 02-04-2009 1:13 AM Cedre has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15929
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 20 of 48 (497397)
02-04-2009 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Cedre
02-04-2009 1:13 AM


Re: Mutations
As beguiling as your offer sounds dear Wounded King, for the time being I"ll have to pass it up (not chicken out), instead I think that I'll linger a while longer on the subject of origins. However, I couldn't help notice that my refering you to a page has been an altogether otiose undertaking. I wonder how much evidence it will take to convince you people. Concerning the page, either you didn't analyse the sound evidence that is provided in it that clearly show the infeasibility of mutations to bring forth useful adaptations, or it may well be you've been blinded from seeing the evidence which is right before you by the dogmatic views of darwin followers.

There is a third option I'd like to proffer for your consideration, which is that, being familiar with the actual evidence (which does not include stuff that creationists make up) we are aware that the claims made by AiG are complete rubbish.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Cedre, posted 02-04-2009 1:13 AM Cedre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Cedre, posted 02-04-2009 3:49 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Cedre
Member (Idle past 1043 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 21 of 48 (497399)
02-04-2009 3:49 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Dr Adequate
02-04-2009 3:29 AM


Re: responding to Dr adequate
Your statement is frightfuly bold, Dr adequate. I will not speak for others but from experience I can avow that the different men and women who write on AiG are real qualified scientists, some of them are on a par with the best of what evolution can offer, and post regualarly in scientific journals and/or serial publications. What is more, though, is that, these scientists are also bible-believing christians, and to me it seems silly that they they would publish information with the intend to cozen unwitting readers. What good would it do for them but send them straight to the pits of hell. The bible guarantee us that all liars will have their part in hell, and in any event honesty is one of Christianity's precepts.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-04-2009 3:29 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Huntard, posted 02-04-2009 3:58 AM Cedre has responded
 Message 32 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-04-2009 5:31 AM Cedre has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member
Posts: 2856
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 22 of 48 (497400)
02-04-2009 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Cedre
02-04-2009 3:49 AM


Re: responding to Dr adequate
Cedre writes:

Your statement is frightfuly bold, Dr adequate. I will not speak for others but from experience I can avow that the different men and women who write on AiG are real qualified scientists, some of them are on a par with the best of what evolution can offer, and post regualarly in scientific journals and/or serial publications. What is more, though, is that, these scientists are also bible-believing christians, and to me it seems silly that they they would publish information with the intend to cozen unwitting readers. What good would it do for them but send them straight to the pits of hell. The bible guarantee us that all liars will have their part in hell, and in any event honesty is one of Christianity's precepts.


The point is they probably think they're right, and are thus not lying. They're wrong, but they think they're right. Or, even if they know they're wrong, they think god will forgive them, since they're getting more people to believe in him, even if it is through lying.

Edited by Huntard, : Quote mistake


I hunt for the truth
This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Cedre, posted 02-04-2009 3:49 AM Cedre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Cedre, posted 02-04-2009 4:10 AM Huntard has responded

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1043 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 23 of 48 (497402)
02-04-2009 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Huntard
02-04-2009 3:58 AM


Re: responding to Dr adequate
No Dr adequate the point is you need to take one of their articles and debunk it word for word, if you can do that in a winning manner, I might display some respect for evolution and I might even make the cross over into your camp, if evolution is a reality, hey man! then anything is possible in this world. But I specially challenge you to take on one of their many articles dealing with mutations. If you're so positive that it's all a load of hotair then you won't have any difficulty debunking it. Good Luck!

Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Huntard, posted 02-04-2009 3:58 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Huntard, posted 02-04-2009 4:18 AM Cedre has responded
 Message 26 by Annafan, posted 02-04-2009 4:55 AM Cedre has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member
Posts: 2856
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 24 of 48 (497404)
02-04-2009 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Cedre
02-04-2009 4:10 AM


Re: responding to Dr adequate
Cedre writes:

No Dr adequate the point is you need to take one of their articles and debunk it word for word, if you can do that in a winning manner, I might display some respect for evolution and I might even make the cross over into your camp, if evolution is a reality, hey man! then anything is possible in this world. But I specially challenge you to take on one of their many articles dealing with mutations. If you're so positive that it's all a load of hotair then you won't have any difficulty debunking it. Good Luck!


I'm not Dr Adequate, I'm Huntard. And like I said before, we don't debate links here. Open up a new thread on mutations and you'll see your assertions ripped to shreds. Since this thread is about origins, and they have nothing to do with mutation, this is the last I'll say on this. I will say this on origins: "I don't know where the first life came from, and for all I care you claim it came from god, I have no problem with this, but playing god of the gaps hasn't worked very well in the past."


I hunt for the truth
This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Cedre, posted 02-04-2009 4:10 AM Cedre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Cedre, posted 02-04-2009 4:41 AM Huntard has responded

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1043 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 25 of 48 (497408)
02-04-2009 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Huntard
02-04-2009 4:18 AM


Re: Hunted
The results of the exercise to debunk an AiG article on mutations wasn't intended to be disclosed on this thread, it is a personal task aimed at Dr Adequate. However in the meantime I have a mounting heap of unrequited questions regarding the origins of life. And to set the record straoght, I am not the one who strays from the theme, it is everyone else in trying to escape discussing origins they instead fill the air with noise about mutations and other irrelevant topics, since I introduced this thread I have not had one person say anything meaningful in defense of the arguments I gave for why abiogenesis is twaddle.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Huntard, posted 02-04-2009 4:18 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Huntard, posted 02-04-2009 4:55 AM Cedre has responded
 Message 28 by Annafan, posted 02-04-2009 5:02 AM Cedre has responded
 Message 37 by Larni, posted 02-04-2009 5:48 AM Cedre has not yet responded
 Message 46 by Wounded King, posted 02-04-2009 6:40 AM Cedre has not yet responded

  
Annafan
Member (Idle past 1992 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 26 of 48 (497411)
02-04-2009 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Cedre
02-04-2009 4:10 AM


Re: responding to Dr adequate
Hi again Cedre

Cedre writes:

No Dr adequate the point is you need to take one of their articles and debunk it word for word, if you can do that in a winning manner, I might display some respect for evolution and I might even make the cross over into your camp,

That is nice to hear! Somebody who is willing to let the evidence decide. Those kind of people are always welcome at EvC.

Dr adequate will probably not take this challenge in this thread (totally off-topic), and it's only natural that his first suggestion will be to check out some of the on-topic threads about these issues. Because, and it is a bit surprising that you seemed to have missed this thus far, there is an enormous wealth of supporting evidence available out there. You might want to check out not only AiG, but also the other side before jumping to conclusions. Not more than fair, not?

Cedre writes:

if evolution is a reality, hey man! then anything is possible in this world.

You got that backwards. If evolution is true, then certainly NOT everything is possible. And that is one way how we can test the theory: if we observe something that is definitely impossible if evolution were true, then there is a problem for the theory. Thus far, after 150 years of observation, no serious problems have been observed for the core of the theory.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Cedre, posted 02-04-2009 4:10 AM Cedre has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member
Posts: 2856
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 27 of 48 (497412)
02-04-2009 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Cedre
02-04-2009 4:41 AM


Re: Hunted
Hello Cedre,

The problem started when you said the origins of life have to do with evolution, which they don't. But fine, let's forget about that. What do you think shows god's hand in the origin of life?


I hunt for the truth
This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Cedre, posted 02-04-2009 4:41 AM Cedre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Cedre, posted 02-04-2009 5:10 AM Huntard has responded

  
Annafan
Member (Idle past 1992 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 28 of 48 (497413)
02-04-2009 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Cedre
02-04-2009 4:41 AM


Re: Hunted
Cedre writes:

since I introduced this thread I have not had one person say anything meaningful in defense of the arguments I gave for why abiogenesis is twaddle.

Nobody will claim that we have a detailed explanation of abiogenesis. We don't. If you want to hear exactly how it all happened, you won't hear it here or anywhere else. As pointed out before, it's a gap that has not been filled in yet, and thus far you'll only get a series of more or less plausible candidates for mechanisms as an answer.

But the REAL question remains: where does it get you once people have "admitted" that? The general impression is that you want to chalk it up as a score against evolution, yet that's missing the point entirely. You are simply fighting the wrong battle, and refusing to see it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Cedre, posted 02-04-2009 4:41 AM Cedre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Cedre, posted 02-04-2009 5:34 AM Annafan has not yet responded

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1043 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 29 of 48 (497416)
02-04-2009 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Huntard
02-04-2009 4:55 AM


Re: Hunted
Well it's suprising for you to ask that question, my man, where've you been all this time, don't you get outsite of the house every so often to marvel at the beauty and sheer genius of nature. The hand of God hasn't been more evident in nature since the birth of science that has started unravelling the cell to unearth such involutions as the citric acid cycle, glycolysis and the various transport mechanism involved in generating useful energy, the slitting of the DNA helix ending up in two daughter DNA, transcription, translation I'm out of breath at this point but no doubt the list doesn't take my loss of breath in account it continues on smoothly. The hand of God is evident and logic supports that notion, science may not be able to validate his existence beyond a shadow of or doubt but it sure does a brilliant task at revealing his handywork in nature.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Huntard, posted 02-04-2009 4:55 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-04-2009 5:23 AM Cedre has not yet responded
 Message 31 by Huntard, posted 02-04-2009 5:24 AM Cedre has not yet responded
 Message 34 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-04-2009 5:35 AM Cedre has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3502
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 30 of 48 (497418)
02-04-2009 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Cedre
02-04-2009 5:10 AM


The good, the bad, and the ugly
This seems to be what you're intending for your other topic.

Are you not applying a special filter here? God gets credit for everything beautiful and wondrous. What about the not so beautiful and wondrous? What about the down right ugly and wretched?

You need to take this to the other proto-Faith and Belief proposed topic. This topic is about the scientific considerations of the origin of life.

Or something like that.

Moose
(aka "the other aspect of the noodle-head")


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Cedre, posted 02-04-2009 5:10 AM Cedre has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
34Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017