Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Grand Theory of Life
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4433 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 18 of 77 (539622)
12-17-2009 5:15 PM


change is not the issue
Hi Guys
I'd like to draw a few comments from the above together and then make some comments.
cavediver writes:
If the study into abiogenesis shows beyond any shadow of a doubt that life could have arisen in a primordial soup, then it says NOTHING about evolution. Evolution stands and falls on its own evidence. It doesn't require and it doesn't imply abiogenesis.
OK, but that depends on what you qualify as evolution. Is the notion that everything came from simple life forms to complex life forms by common descent a vital part of evolution? If not, if evolution really is just variation of a population leading to speciation, then evolution is completly compatible with creation science.
grannymagda writes:
As for why creationists object to evolution, you tell me, but as far as I can tell, the main reason is because one of the origin stories that is not compatible with evolution is the one in Genesis. That seems to be the main bone of contention. One cannot believe in a literal Genesis and a mainstream ToE. The ToE is compatible with many different origins but one thing it is not consistent with is humanity being created in our current form at the dawn of the Earth.
Yes the origin stories are the main contention. Did we start off with very simple organisms which evolved into complex organisms, or did we start with complex organisms which evolved through variation into many different species. This is the main contention and that is why examples of variation etc do not impress creationists. So what is your main contention with creationists? Is it not because you believe that life originated as a simple life form? Why do you insist that life had to begin as a simple life form? Is it not because if you can start life simple then you feel that a naturalistic explanation of abiogenesis is more plausible?
cavediver writes:
If "chemical soup" abiogenesis was proved to be impossible, and let's go further and say it was proved that in fact the first life was made up of complex cells that were created by god, then what on earth does this say about the ability of those created cells to evolve? Nothing...
sure, but as suggested above, there is a need for life to start simple in order for evolutionists to make naturalistic abiogenesis more plausible. Change is not the main issue. Change from what is the main issue.

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Briterican, posted 12-17-2009 5:33 PM Arphy has not replied
 Message 21 by Meldinoor, posted 12-17-2009 5:57 PM Arphy has not replied
 Message 22 by Modulous, posted 12-17-2009 6:00 PM Arphy has not replied
 Message 24 by Granny Magda, posted 12-17-2009 6:49 PM Arphy has not replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4433 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 25 of 77 (539641)
12-17-2009 9:40 PM


Hi Guys
I'll start off with this:
magda writes:
There is a clear enough understanding of what we mean by evolution, let's not mess with it.
Yeah I was hoping so but then I got some conflicting replies
britanican writes:
Arphy writes:
Is the notion that everything came from simple life forms to complex life forms by common descent a vital part of evolution?
Yes.
meldinoor writes:
Evolution really only is defined as "descent with modification". It doesn't really say anything about starting conditions, or complexity.
Which one is it?
If the word evolution does imply common descent from "simple" to "complex" life forms then it goes beyond the realms of biology into natural history.
If the word evolution is solely used in relation to biological change as in "descent with modification" then the word is not in any conflict with creation science. However, when we go into what organism descended from which organism this becomes natural history. So in fact you have no biological evidence against creation science. Yet it is rejected as a possibility because as Britanican so finely pointed out "Because for life to have begun as anything other than simple would necessitate a designer, one who must have arguably been more complex than the life it created" and then goes on to say "simply raising more questions (where did the designer entity come from?) in infinite regress. It's turtles... all the way down." In other words, he thinks it is in the too hard basket therefore it cannot possibly be the truth. This just isn't logical. Are you out to find the truth, or are you out to find a naturalistic explanation? If you were really searching for the truth you would consider other possibilities even if the questions initially posed by considering that possibility may seem difficult.
moving on
meldinoor writes:
Contrary to Creationists, evolutionary scientists are not simply insisting something to make it fit their "explanation" as to how life began. Most books I've read on the subject of evolution, including those by Richard Dawkins, spend very little time talking about naturalistic origins. This is because we still know very little of how life began (although there are many suggestions as to how it might have happened).
Yes, it is true that many evolutionists don't go into abiogenesis too often, however, it is stressed that life began simple and grew in complexity through completly natural methods. This automatically implies in the minds of many people that "hey, there can't be too much difference between a very simple cell and inorganic molecules, so the likelihood that molecules turned into an organism through naturalistic means seems quite likely". The "simple to complex" is stressed because it seemingly gives hope for a naturalistic explanation for abiogenesis. If the opposite scenario is taken of "highly complex to varied and "less" complex", then any hope in a naturalistic explanation for abiogenesis vanishes.
So what is the evidence used to try and support the "simple to complex" version. It isn't biology. It is the fossil record, as all of you seem to suggest, that you believe holds the key. So in other words, it isn't the present biological change that causes you to favour the naturalistc explanation, but rather you rely on interpretations of "ancient" relics to make your case. Do the rock layers beneath our feet really suggest the naturalistic scenario? Is the biblical explanation plausible? This is what needs to be discussed and so I hope that we will continue to explore this issue in the Great Debate thread.
Going into some other points made:
modulous writes:
Yes, The Grand Natural Theory of Life would be eliminated as a possibility if natural origins of life was ruled out. But the natural theory behind the evolution of life would still be fine. The natural history of life we have constructed would be almost entirely intact, yes?
No, not necessarily. This is because if things have "devolved" this implies that the starting organisms were highly complex creatures e.g. a fully formed mammal that had a large amount of variation potential. This doesn't fit in with the present view of natural history after life began.
modulous writes:
There does seem a significant trend of natural explanations behind it all, and there are advances in the area that are promising, so it seems worth investigating the possibility before postulating unfalsifiable alternatives.
Creation science is not unfalsifiable (see the great debate thread or read the AS vs CMI debate)
magda writes:
Common ancestry is one of the implications of the ToE sure.
Unfortunatly this sentence isn't very good (sorry, couldn't think of a better word to put in there). This is because in creation science common ancestery is also an important concept. "descent with modification" does not necessarily imply that ancestery is from a "simpler" life form.
magda writes:
The common ancestry of all known life isn't a function of this evolution/abiogenesis distinction though, it's just where the evidence points. There could just as easily have been two abiogenesis events, two separate strands of life. they could both have emerged and then evolved. But they didn't. It seems all life is related
This is also misleading. The fact that all life is based on similar principals doesn't in any way exclude intelligent design, in fact i would say that it is good evidence for an Intelligent designer. But yes, the distinction between abiogenesis and evolution is being eroded because of the implication of a "simple to complex" model makes a naturalistic abiogenesis explanation more plausible. Thereby hoping to create a completly Naturalistic Grand Theory of Life.

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Meldinoor, posted 12-17-2009 11:57 PM Arphy has not replied
 Message 27 by Granny Magda, posted 12-18-2009 5:51 AM Arphy has not replied
 Message 29 by Briterican, posted 12-18-2009 2:51 PM Arphy has not replied
 Message 30 by Modulous, posted 12-18-2009 4:53 PM Arphy has replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4433 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 31 of 77 (539695)
12-18-2009 6:11 PM


Hi Meldinoor, Magda, and Britanican
ok, so at the moment it would be fair to say that the ToE doesn't necessitate a "simple to complex" history of life. When i used the word biology in my post I was refering to the study of living organisms today. In this there does not seem to be evidence for the "simple to complex" scenario, although meldinoor does mention homologies (happy to go into this in more detail sometime), but the main emphasis is upon what is found in the fossil record. As Meldinoor says
Our understanding about how life originated, or of its simple beginnings, does not stem directly from the theory of evolution. The TOE does not predict that life must begin at a certain level of complexity. Indeed, it would function equally well in a world where life was created 6000 years ago.
So when i said
arphy writes:
So in other words, it isn't the present biological change that causes you to favour the naturalistc explanation, but rather you rely on interpretations of "ancient" relics to make your case.
and magda replies
magda writes:
You've lost me here. Natural explanation for what exactly? We use the fossil record for evidence regarding ancient life. What else would you have us use?
I am not saying that you cannot use the fossil record but rather that you only allow one interpretation of the evidence. The fossil record is much more subjective than for example natural selection which is something we can study in the here and now. Therefore I think both slevesque and me are quite keen to show in the great debate thread that historical evidence fits the biblical picture better than the evolutionary "simple to complex" idea.
Putting aside the fossil record for the moment, let us turn to meldinoor's comment that was echoed by magda and Britanican as well
meldinoor writes:
Science can ONLY deal with naturalistic explanations. There is no way to test for another explanation.
Take it as a hypothetical situation if you want to, but what would you say if there is undeniable evidence that evolution has worked from complex to less complex organisms. If we begin with highly complex organisms, would it still be a reasonable position for a scientist to try and find a naturalistic explanation for their origin? I do not not think that it is impossible for science to demonstrate the need for an intelligent designer. If we came at the fossil record from this point of view would we not see the fossil record differently? Especially if an intelligent designer (i.e.God) has told us a plausible explanation for why the fossils exist as they do (i.e. the flood)? How is this not science? It is both testable and falsifiable.
Yet most scientist only like to entertain the "simple to complex" idea because in doing so it seems to make a naturalistic explanation for abiogenesis more plausible. Why? Because the mantra that science can only deal with purely naturalistic ideas and must not entertain avenues that lead to a supernatural explanation is pushed in our society. For more on the self serving "rules" of what is science see Science: The rules of the game - creation.com and ‘It’s not science’ - creation.com
also getting back to the thread topic
magda writes:
The point is that evolution and abiogenesis are (under current knowledge) not wedded to each other - they are separate fields of study, both subgroups of the field of biology.
They may be seen as seperate but they influence each other quite a bit i.e. mechanisms used in naturalistic evolution are sometimes used to try and explain naturalistic abiogenesis. So in a sense they are often already wedded i.e. many naturalistic abiogenesis theories wouldn't exist without taking into account naturalistic "simple to complex" evolutionary ideas.

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by bluescat48, posted 12-18-2009 6:40 PM Arphy has not replied
 Message 35 by Granny Magda, posted 12-18-2009 7:44 PM Arphy has replied
 Message 36 by Coyote, posted 12-18-2009 8:45 PM Arphy has not replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4433 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 33 of 77 (539697)
12-18-2009 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Modulous
12-18-2009 4:53 PM


There are two broad possibilities.
1. The evidence shows that things have 'devolved' from highly complex organisms.
So, if we disproved natural abiogenesis - this would not change the evidence that life has 'devolved' - correct?
2. The evidence shows that things have 'evolved' from more simple creatures.
My contention is that the same applies here. If we disproved natural abiogenesis - this would not change the evidence that life has 'evolved'. Would you agree with this?
Yes, i think so. The point is that a natural abiogenesis only works with number 2. So, if life has 'evolved' then natural and supernatural explanations are still in competition with each other. However if things 'devolved' natural abiogenesis options don't even really have a chance. however, if we take a biblical stance then this has no shot in scenario 2 (unless you feel that butchering the text beyond recognition is ok (which i don't)). This is also why I feel that the intelligent design movement is too plastic at the moment. While making some good points, it is too vague.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Modulous, posted 12-18-2009 4:53 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4433 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 37 of 77 (539713)
12-19-2009 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Granny Magda
12-18-2009 7:44 PM


Re: I Demand My Pre-Cambrian Rabbit!
Hi magda
But when you say "simple to complex", you appear to be talking about the entire history of life.
I meant as in the present animals that we can study don't necessarily seem to be becoming more "complex".
Where have you ever seen a scientist saying that she believes in "simple to complex" evolution because it makes it easier to believe in natural abiogenesis? I have never heard any such statement.
Not everything is said out loud and not every choice is conscious. Even when there was a limited knowledge of the fossil record people in the past have still been very acceptive of the darwinian "simple to complex" evolution. What i am saying is that it has a certain amount of charm because it implies that everything can be explained through naturalistic functions. In other words it was attractive to many people. It is still attractive today as britanican writes in an earlier post:
britanican writes:
The evidence available to us paints an amazing picture of the past, one in which great beauty and diversity arose from humble beginnings. When I stop and think about the fact that so much amazing biological evolution has occurred on this tiny planet, and then look up at the stars and wonder what sort of beings may have arisen out there, I cannot help but feel transcendent. It is what you might call "a religious experience" for me (or the closest I am going to get to one anyway). I am astounded by the magnificence of this history of gradual change that allowed complex and intricate structures to arise from simplicity. It makes me feel "one with the universe".
I can't imagine a man-made origin myth coming anywhere close to the overwhelmingly elegent and beautiful truth as revealed to us through science. The story of creation as told in Genesis is really very dull and boring compared to the majesty of what actually happened.
If you disagree, then where is your evidence? Where are the Pre-Cambrian rabbits? Where is the ancient complex life? I want my Pre-Cambrian rabbit fossil!
You first show me why in flood geology we would expect to find a rabbit in pre-cambrian rock. To find a rabbit in such a place would be very unlikely in the flood geology model.
Probably because abiogenesis experiments have revealed natural selection-like mechanisms at work in their proposed pre-biotic molecules.
which favour more highly complex and more organic like arrangements of molecules?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Granny Magda, posted 12-18-2009 7:44 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Meldinoor, posted 12-19-2009 12:44 AM Arphy has not replied
 Message 39 by Coyote, posted 12-19-2009 1:14 AM Arphy has not replied
 Message 40 by Briterican, posted 12-19-2009 8:33 AM Arphy has not replied
 Message 41 by Granny Magda, posted 12-19-2009 9:27 AM Arphy has replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4433 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 48 of 77 (540161)
12-22-2009 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Granny Magda
12-19-2009 9:27 AM


Re: I Demand My Pre-Cambrian Rabbit!
We see very little change in our lifetimes. that is in complete agreement with what the ToE predicts. In asking for a visible increase in "complexity" you are asking for something that the ToE never predicted.
So uphill evolution (is that a better term?) is just theoretical when studying todays species, it hasn't actually been observed?
Right. So you really do imagine that you know what I and others like me think better than we know ourselves. That is extraordinarily arrogant.
Just as nearly every evolutionist on here believes that creationists deliberatly lie, and distort or disregard facts. I would say those type of statements are in a way arrogant as well. All I was doing was giving my opinion as to why people believe what i think is wrong idea. As I am outside of the group of people that believes in evolution therefore any opinion that I have about that group will come across as arrogant (and vice-versa). I mean hey, whenever a psychologist makes any sort of remark about a person or group of people he is making an arrogant remark. It comes down to the question of whether a person outside the group can see patterns of behaviour that people inside of the group are unaware of. But yes, as you say later on
What you imagine motivates others to believe in this progression is ultimately irrelevant. All that matters is evidence. I could easily make the same the criticism of Christianity; people only believe it because they find it comforting to do so. This has little or no bearing on whether Christ died for us on the cross, hmm?
which shows that when we believe something to be true we tend to look for reasons as to why people don't believe the things we do. I have no intention of being arrogant in the sense that "I'm a better person than you". But I am basically saying "I think that I am right, and you are wrong, because i am certain of the things I believe". I would prefer if everyone was "arrogant" as in my second example i.e.being sure of what one believes. Do you have a problem with that? So anyway my opinion is that one of the reasons why uphill evolution is attractive is because it allows for the possibility of a similar naturalistic explanation for abiogenesis, while downhill evolution is unattractive because it would logically lead to the necessity of an intelligent designer.
The rabbit isn't the point. The point is the anachronism of finding a rabbit in a period so ancient that its supposed precursors had not even emerged themselves. This would blow the ToE out of the water. There are endless possibilities for such an observation. Grasses in the Devonian, birds in the Carboniferous, frogs in the Cambrian. I could literally go on al day naming anachronistic fossil/period combo's. The point is that none have ever been found. Not one.
Firstly many of your combos would not be expected in a creationist/diluvialist framework. 2nd, The ranges of fossils keep on extending and as time goes on and more research continues to come in pinpointing a certain organisms range in the fossil record is becoming increasingly difficult as range extensions occur The fossil record - creation.com. 3rd, as I have shown before on this forum, just because something is not found beyond some point in the fossil record doesn't mean it doesn't continue to exist e.g. coelacanth who doesn't appear on the fossil record for supposed millions of years only to be still swimming around today!
but Yes, there is a rough general trend in the fossil record which is consistent with the creationist framework.
See ya all again in January some time,
God bless, have a fantastic Christmas and a superb new year
Arphy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Granny Magda, posted 12-19-2009 9:27 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by bluescat48, posted 12-22-2009 5:54 PM Arphy has not replied
 Message 50 by Granny Magda, posted 12-23-2009 11:45 AM Arphy 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