Icons of Evolution

Hi Huntard, thanks for starting the thread, just found it now or I would have reacted sooner.You're right that there are too many to discuss them all at once so how's about we start with the Urey Miller experiment.In this icon which is still generally mentioned in bio texts, a simulated hydrogen rich atmosphere of methane, ammonia and water vapour was used and a few amino acids were produced along with other substances completely toxic to life.The amino acids that can be produced in this kind of experiment tend to be left and right handed in more or less equal quantities but living things only use left handed amino-acids. There would be nothing to stop the right handed ones from linking up with the left handed ones so no life there.It was later found by geochemists that the mixture used was not what was indicated to be available in the early rocks so new experiments were done for a more realistic simulation. No amino acids were formed under these conditions.The problem with this 'icon' is that despite the fact that it is now generally agreed that oxygen was present in the early atmosphere and that would be toxic to organic synthesis even if the amino acids could have formed spontaneously.I think the point of the criticism of this icon is that it is presented still as a breakthrough experiment for the origin of life and the downside of subsequent experiments is not mentioned which is not honest.The story line goes that amino acids were produced in these early experiments and amino acids join to form proteins (as if that is what would have happened) and proteins are the main building blocks of living organisms.Since the downside is that realistic simulations produced no amino acids, either the downside of the later experiments should be fairly mentioned or it should be taken out of the books.It is this kind of thing that intelligent design proponents and creationists want mentioned in the classroom so that a false positive is not taken as fact by people who do not know the follow up.It gives the impression that the random fortuitous generation of life from non-living chemicals is really more than just a vague possibility. Of course the people that support these kinds of presentations do not want the downside mentioned because they have no doubt whatsoever that life began somehow like that with no intelligent input and doubters are not welcome at the party.

Hi Huntard, Simple conditions for what other reason than to convey the impression that life could have started all by itself. The simple conditions originally chosen were said to simulate conditions on an early earth. The reducing atmospheric conditions were actually chosen specifically because it is and was known that organic synthesis cannot take place in the presence of oxygen.
Oparin and Haldane hypothesized in the 1920’s that chemicals produced in the atmosphere dissolved in the primordial seas to form a ”hot dilute soup’ from which the first living cells emerged. It remained an untested hypothesis until the 1950’s when Miller and Urey did their experiment. The experiment generated huge excitement in the scientific world and soon found its way into high school and bio text as evidence that science had demonstrated the first step in the origin of life.
For what reason would such an experiment be done and placed in the section on evolution in the text books except to convey the impression that life on earth could have occurred without any intelligent input? But what is the point unless it was to convey the impression as stated above. Maybe you had a more awake teacher that didn’t press the point but I’m sure you absorbed it nonetheless.
If the point was not to prove that life could have arisen on earth by chance then why, when they realized that the early earth couldn’t have had a reducing atmosphere did they test again with more appropriate conditions for an early earth? Well evolution really does need a starting point if it’s going to be our alternate creation story as much as evolutionists protest. If everything is pure chemistry then pure chemistry must be able to get the thing started. But since origin of life research is really hitting a lot of snags, evolutionists like to distance themselves from its failures and pretend that it has nothing to do with evolution per se, though it obviously does or like I say, that experiment wouldn’t keep popping up in text book sections on ”evolution’. Good well then you must have some people that agree with you since I see that in two textbooks that I have looked through now, the Miller urey experiment seems to have been dropped. It’s still in some of them but it’s good that some have finally removed it after more than 50 years of misleading people by its implications.

So tell me, how do they suggest the left and right handed forms got separated so that life was formed from left handed amino acids only?
Remember no intelligence was around to separate them out.
Also how many of the 20 amino acids did they actually manage to produce? So in other words you know what would be required if life had to somehow get started on its own and between thinking and probably and according to necessity if abiogenesis is factual, people decide what must have been around?If the difference between amino acids and life is like the difference between random letters (with probably a lot missing)and Shakespeare,do you imagine that nature alone could manage to put together the code that directs the formation of the protein molecules that are necessary for cellular function and function?Is it at all possible that intelligence might have been required to put all the left handed amino acids together in meaningful sequences?

Organic molecules but not amino-acids?No matter what can be done in a lab, it nonetheless requires intelligence and specific conditions and the products have to be kept isolated so that they won't be destroyed. Does this show that life could have formed on its own in an early atmosphere no matter what it was? And again what about the left and right handed amino acids that form when conditions are just right?I would think that to be more honest we should admit our ignorance rather than continue to give the misleading impression that the Urey Miller experiment shows how life's building blocks could have originated on an early earth leading potentially to organization of early life forms.Both sides, pros and cons would be more honest.Of course if we want to create the impression that life could easily have originated without any outside help then we should keep it presented just the way it is.

Well it is and it isn't since no-one knows whether it could conceivably have happened at all despite all the wishful thinking that goes on. My problem with it is only that it is one-sided and is attempting to create an impression that may be completely unfounded.Why the whole picture can't be presented warts and all to keep the record straight is beyond me unless it is the impression that is all important. There again is the impression you are left with -there are a few minor hiccups but more experiments are being done (which should sort the whole mess out.) Instead of the question did it or didn't it happen due to natural processes -you are getting the it did but we're just not sure about all the details as yet.There's a big difference. Try reading Well's response to his critics on the Discovery Institute website -an article entitled "Critics Rave over Icons of Evolution". Critics Rave Over Icons of Evolution | Discovery Institute

Yes but organic molecules are not all amino acids so if you are talking about making amino acids (which is what we specifically need) then let’s specify whether he got amino acids or just arbitrary organic molecules which would not help in the production of life and specifically proteins. . and so? On earth they need help to prevent interfering cross reactions from wiping them out. Long wavelength UV light must be excluded since it quickly degrades amino acids. Miller experiments invariably produce non biological substances that degrade amino acids into non-biologically relevant compounds. In short they need ”profoundly informative intervention’ by an intelligent agent to overcome the randomising influences of natural chemical processes. That’s right. Each protein found in the cell comprises a long and definitely arranged sequence of amino acids and the function of each depends on the specific sequencing which determines the complex 3-d shape that the chain adopts and that shape in turn determines what hand in glove fit occurs with other molecules enabling it to catalyse specific reactions or build specific structures in the cell. It’s like the sequencing of letters and words in a sentence - it has to have a meaningful sequence which in turn is directed by the information -the set of biochemical instructions -encoded on the DNA molecule. There we go, the philosophical assumption again. It did happen without intelligent intervention, we know it did -all by itself -we just haven’t worked out exactly how.That’s exactly the impression that every text book leaves - and that’s my point.

Anti-evolution certainly but anti-science? Most assuredly not. Actually they are not so much anti-evolution as they are ”anti the evolutionary philosophy holding a monopoly over science’ and refusing to allow any criticism or any competing viewpoint to have its say. Well that’s the pot calling the kettle black -the main critics are like the people at the NSCE and they are the ones creating misleading impressions using rhetoric, intentional ambiguity and misrepresented evidence. I’ve listened to Eugenie Scott and Dawkins and have noted the ambiguity when they use the word ”evolution’ meaning the variation that does occur in life and then by extension expect you to believe the BIG claim that macroevolution occurs from a common ancestor by extrapolation. I've heard Eugenie Scott saying that even if Haeckel did 'fudge' his drawings somewhat, so what, the overall impression is still correct. In other words a little bit of dishonesty has given the correct impression so it doesn't really matter. Actually Haeckel did deceive with his drawings and gave the incorrect impression -lying intentionally cannot be good for anyone. The Discovery institute is exposing deceit. They are serving a worthwhile purpose. They are making an effort to explain why there is a controversy and what it actually entails. If you don’t like what they do it’s only because you prefer evolution to continue to hold an undeserved and unopposed monopoly over science. No, actually they are bringing controversial issues out into the open, explaining what is wrong with evolutionary ”science’ and opposing the deception that has already been propogated on the masses using philosophical assumptions that override evidential science. They are allowing the educated public to see both sides instead of the one side that has held sway over science for far too long without any real competition. It’s actually good for everyone though some obviously are finding it too challenging and prefer to live in the past and remain stuck in their rut.
If evolution is everything it is cracked up to be then it should have no reason to fear the competition. It should welcome criticism with anticipation of truth overcoming fiction. Those of us that support the Discovery Institute’s aims welcome the challenge and have no reason to fear the truth.
Good honest open debate is good for everyone -dogmatic ”science’ is good for nobody. Yes the devotees of evolution are upset. There is also a wide spectrum of people criticizing the one sided dogmatic teaching of evolution. Their real goal is opposing the philosophical dogmatic assumptions of evolution -they have no argument with real science -the evidential stuff. A little opposition to those of the evolution religion that say there is no need of intelligence, there is no God (or none that does or has done anything worth noting.) is a good thing.If evolution is true, then it has nothing to fear. We are now in the dark ages with the tyranny of evolutionary belief holding their concept of reality as the truth and forcing it unopposed down everybody’s throat in the educational system. It’s belief system infiltrates society at every level and dominates our culture.If it's true, we don’t mind -if it's not, we do mind. It is truth that is of ultimate importance, not any particular belief system.

Actually that is what evolution does.Everything must conform to the assumption that only natural processes could be responsible-and even if the evidence shows that it's not possible, you stick with the original program. No, I'm trying to show that evolutionary science is a philosophy allowing natural causes only as if they can know for a fact that no organizing intelligence could possibly be involved.

Well the thing is, it's not the methodological naturalism so much as the redefining of science to exclude any other possibility that upsets ID proponents.By redefining 'science' as everything is due to natural causes only, a philisophical assumption is made. The problem is if that assumption is not correct.
Although we have natural laws that work and we can use them to predict all sorts of things, there are other things, like origins that we do not believe can be attributed to natural law and natural causes. For instance, a Christian believes that all life only comes from pre-existing life and that an intelligent creator created the original kinds. Now we may not be able to prove it but we can infer it from the evidence of coded information in the genome and the fact that breeding and mutation experiments seem to have limits. Naturalists of course can't see that possibility because they have already philisophically presupposed that all life has a common ancestor which is as good as presupposing that life got started all by itself by natural causes even though they try to distance themselves from abiogenesis since it is not so very successful. Of course they can't KNOW that, but the moment they apply that philosophy to everything, it's like having a possibly faulty base on which everything else is built.
So while the evolutionist supposes and imagines how a simple light detecting spot became more and more complex until a proper eye with full vision was formed, we have another theory altogether and the story of how the spot became an eye becomes a vast amount of imagination based on the initial assumption which may be incorrect.All that ID is saying is that science cannot carry on with their assumptions being the only ones allowed to be investigated and if they are so confident that they are correct, they would not so fear competition that they become hysterical about the other possibilities and desperately try to keep all evidence against Darwinism out of the classroom. If their base is solid so let it be criticized and it should be able to stand without propping it up with guns, grenades and sarcasm. Well there's the philisophical assumption again that there was a common ancestor.That's the part that we don't all believe. Some ID people do, some don't but Haeckel's embryos don't illustrate the point unless you select your specimens carefully and show the midpoint where they are more similar and leave out the early stages where they are not.But the whole point is supposed to be about the earliest stages being most similar and then the differences coming in only later showing basically a mini-evolution of their own from a common ancestor type appearance.So it's not only fudging the appearances, it's about carefully selecting your evidence to illustrate something that isn't but would make a nice proof were it true. So they're not illustrating something that's basically true they're forcing the interpretation on the evidence - that's fraud not proof.

Hello again Huntard, Experimental science includes stuff for which there is evidence. Evolutionary ”science’ is based on hypothetical possibilities that are certainly not proven. No the possibilities are not endless, there are only two that need to be discussed. Life made itself via natural processes OR life was created by an intelligence beyond natural law. Nobody is saying we must include every religion and their individual stories but many religions believe that life was created and to be fair and objective ID proponents are saying that there is enough evidence to be able to infer intelligent intervention in the creation of life. So that is all they want to be allowed to include -the evidence that life may not have been self-created by natural processes only from non-living chemicals.
Saying that amino-acids may have formed naturally does not bring us anywhere close to life. It’s like finding some rubber and imagining that given time (preferably billions of years), rubber and natural law could come together with other components to form a self-replicating car.
Even the simplest cell is incredibly complex - full of miniature functioning machines that are coded for by DNA that has to pass a message on to form proteins that are very specific and fold up to form specific shapes that interact very specifically with other proteins that have other functions -all of which are necessary for life. Who coded the DNA?As Stephen Meyer says in an article called “Word Games” -not quoting directly but basically this:Chemical law cannot account for it by preferential bonding. Biochemistry and molecular biology make it clear that the forces of attraction between the constituents of DNA, RNA and protein do not explain the sequence specificity of these large information- bearing biomolecules. If the individual nucleotides did interact by chemical necessity with each other, the DNA message text would be peppered by repeating sequences similar to crystals. Basically bonding affinities undercut the maximization of information. Therefore they cannot explain the origin of information -the highly improbable, aperiodic and yet specified sequences that make biological function possible.
He also says: Our experience with information-intensive systems (especially codes and languages) indicates that such systems always come from an intelligent source, not chance or material necessity. Because mind or intelligent design is a necessary cause of an informative system, one can detect the past action of an intelligent cause from the presence of an in information-intensive effect, even if the cause itself cannot be directly observed.
Scientists in many fields recognize the connection between intelligence and information and make inferences accordingly for example in archaeology and SETI by looking for information embedded in electromagnetic signals. Molecular biologists, looking closer to home, have discovered information in the cell. Except that you apparently only believe the naturalists ”evidence’ which if you look at things like Urey Miller and Haeckel’s embryos is not evidence at all. But the genetic record could just as easily be evidence for a common designer. According to Jonathan Wells, who is a vertebrate embryologist, they are not most similar in their earliest stages. As British zoologist Adam Sedgewick wrote, “The claim is not in accordance with the facts of development” and “a species is distinct and distinguishable from its allies from the very earliest stages all through development.”
As William Ballard, Dartmouth College embryologist confirms, “only by semantic tricks and subjective selection of evidence,” “by bending the facts of nature, “ that one can argue that the earliest stages of vertebrate embryos “are more similar than their adults.
In fact as Wells notes “the earliest vertebrate embryos are often less similar to one another than they are at subsequent stages when they possess more complex features.”
Jerry Coyne who criticized Wells about his criticisms re embryos admitted that the embryos are NOT most similar in their earliest stages but then argues that it is still evidence that can be explained in light of Darwin’s theory.
So as Well’s concludes: Some of the strongest evidence for Darwin’s theory (according to Darwin at the time) is that the vertebrate embryos are most similar in their early stages -except that they’re not. But if we just interpret the embryos’ dissimilarities in the light of Darwin’s theory, they then have evidential value.” (according to Coyne) “Oh nowI get it! (says Wells) Darwin’s theory wins no matter what the evidence shows. That must just be how evolutionary biology works.” And, in order to illustrate the point, you would have been shown the mid stage ones and only those vertebrate species that are specifically chosen because they look most similar -illustrating the lie. No, they’re not.

Only recent developments and opposition and the forcing of truth out into the open would have made them even bother. After more than a century of misinformation, it's about time they admitted that the whole charade is wrong! I do look at the textbooks and 'science' has been discredited by their own actions. You need to look into the facts before you make an ass out of yourself. Edited by Beretta, : Incomplete

Well in that case you may as well get yourself a new made up Bible with evolution notes that say "The morning and the evening were THE FIRST DAY" (Note: this is referring to the first billion or so evolutionary years.)How do you know what to pick and choose?

Ad hominems are always a last ditch cry of desperation when the facts are against you.
As for your stories of embryos, none of that changes the fact that embryos are not most similar in their earliest stages so there is no ontogenic recapitulation of phylogeny after all.
Haeckel was charged with fraud at his own university.Why did Haeckel invent the story? Because he desperately wanted to find evidence to support Darwin.Darwin was utterly impressed with the fraud too.You tell me why that nonsense has been used to fool people into becoming believers in evolution for more than a century if there's so much evidence out there?

How do you know they have no basis in reality? A little child should be able to understand the Bible not just a professional scientist.
Somewhere in Corinthians it says: "Better to trust in the Lord than to put your faith in the words of men."
Men's words get written and rewritten and rewritten and interpretations change. I'm sure God could have come up with a better word for billions of years then 'the first day' if he had meant it to mean a very long time.
You can only believe that the people were too stupid to understand back then if you believe they evolved from monkeys.It shouldn't become possible to understand the first few chapters of Genesis only after some geologist decides in the 1700's to interpret the geological record according to a belief in uniformatarianism.I think God knew exactly what He was saying and how men were going to twist it right from the beginning but there's always some personal reason when people decide to twist the clear words of scripture.