|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,483 Year: 3,740/9,624 Month: 611/974 Week: 224/276 Day: 64/34 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: TOE and the Reasons for Doubt | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4951 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
ok so now your quote mining me to teach me a lesson are you? lol
what i said was
Peg writes: Now if you think about the sheer complexity of DNA, you cant possibly imagine that such a structure could come into existence without direction and intelligence...The genetic code which is a requirement for cell reproduction could not have evolved for the reason that Proteins depend on DNA for their formation. But DNA cannot form without pre-existing protein. And without the genetic code, there can be no reproduction in the first place. I think you know what i was saying...but to put it simply, what came first, the DNA or the protein. Both are needed for the genes to function and Proteins depend on DNA for their formation. But DNA cannot form without pre-existing protein so how could they have evolved without direction? Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4951 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Percy, evolutionists are the ones telling the story and they print a lot of literature in an attempt to explain it
of course we read it and when the things they say dont add up to the evidence they provide, it leads many people to question them and pick them up on such quotes. for instance, evolution teaches a long and slow progression from species to species, but the evidence is contrary to this. Rather then a long slow development, they show higher categories emerge in a very sudden way in the fossil record that doesnt add up to what they claim evolution is about. If its a slow progession, then why is the evidence showing a sudden appearance of species? Or do you think its wrong of us to question them because we dont do the field study ourselves?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4951 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
are they called quote mines because they are explosive to the TOE?
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. Origin of Species, Charles Darwin, page154. I wonder what darwin would think today
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4951 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
That he was absolutely right, and that no such example has ever been found. can the living cell survive without all its parts?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4951 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Parasomnium writes: Your quote actually catches Darwin in one of his brilliant moments: long before the concept of falsifiability had been formally defined as one of the cornerstones of scientific theorizing, he effectively told us in no uncertain terms how it ought to be done. so he was a philosopher which probably explains why the ToE has gone thru so much change since he penned it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4951 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Coyote writes: Why should change in a theory be a problem? It becomes increasingly accurate as it changes, and you should consider that a good thing. i agree that accuracy is a good thing but the toe that darwin coined is not the same theory we have today, yet we are expected to believe that he was spot on???
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4951 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Coyote writes: I guess if you have no evidence against the theory you attack the originator, eh? well the theory wasnt really Darwins to start with...it was greek philosophers who first suggested that life evolved. Aristotle pictured man at the top of a line evolving from lower life forms and Empedocles believed in the spontaneous generation of life. So the idea's been around for a very long time. Darwin was the first to put the theory into the context of science and ever since scientists have used the theory to explain life as we know it. But you have to admit that modern science has shown Darwins theory to have flaws and this has led to much of it being revamped or discarded I used the quote from Darwin because moleculuar biology proves that Darwins fear is a reality
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. Modern biochemistry has revealed just how complex living things really are. Cells can only function if all the parts are complete and working properly. Or IOW, the first complex cell must have appeared instantaneously as a complete functioning unit. the Cell puts darwins theory to bed so to speak. life did not arise by chance and evolve in the way he and other philosophers described it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4951 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
bluescat48 writes: This is normal for theories,> As further work itro a theory is done, changes often are made do to increased knowledge on the subject or newer discoveries alter the original concept. it would be good if that happened in reality, but with regard to the TOE, it has not happened even though its been adequately shown that the living cell cannot evolve.
bluescat48 writes: Science does not deal in absolutes which is why theories are what science deals with. Scientists are constantly trying to refine theories. even if it can be proved that living cells cannot evolve?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4951 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
WoundedKing writes: I'm not sure what question you are really asking here. If you are asking ..."If we remove any specific part of a modern living cell will it cease to survive?" What i'm asking is, will it continue to function as a cell should if any of its parts are removed?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4951 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Parasomnium writes: You can't seriously expect a theory that was formed before all of those breakthroughs to remain unchanged after them. It has nothing to do with Darwin being philosophical, and everything with science making progress. and this is what I find so curious todays discoveries have been so profound with regard to the complexity of life and the universe, yet the idea that it all just happened by blind chance and undirected persists of course not all scientist believe it was undirected, but a good majority of them do and they promote it as evolution. But with regard to Darwin, i dont disrespect the man, i disrespect his theory. I can understand why he came up with the theory though and i dont think it was because of scientific discovery.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4951 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Huntard writes: Wrong. Modern biology shows the exact opposite. ok, explain what the exact opposite is you are refering to
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4951 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Wounded King writes:
Well then see the answer I gave to that interpretation of the question back in Clarification (Message 460). Then the answer is no. There are some parts whose removal will compromise the cells viability, but there are others whose removal will still allow the cell to function. Depending on the specific flavour of irreducible complexity you prefer this either does or doesn't make a living cell irreducibly complex. ok so maybe you can explain which parts of the cell can be removed without causing the cell to cease functioning and reproducing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4951 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
cavediver writes: And so life begins... it sounds simple enough so simple in fact that scientists should be able to reproduce that simple process in a lab, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4951 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
so when they say they are working on a 'synthetic cellular system' does this mean they will create something artificially, or will they be using something that is already existing??
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4951 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
bluescat48 writes: Could you show some evidence that living cells cannot evolve. i put it the wrong way...i made it sound like i was saying a living cell could not change in any way which it might do, im not sure. what i meant is that a living cell could not develop unguided to become a living cell because the complete genetic code is a requirement for cell reproduction. Proteins depend on DNA for their formation and yet DNA cannot form without pre-existing protein. So if we are to believe that a living cell evolved, then we have to believe that the DNA and the protein evolved both separately and together...this is like saying the chicken and the egg evolved apart from each other but were dependent on each other to evolve.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024