|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4655 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How Darwin caused atheism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Briterican Member (Idle past 3977 days) Posts: 340 Joined: |
Bluejay writes: But, I'm having trouble visualizing how the process of development from basic molecules to the first replicator could have taken a path that didn't involve mutations and selection. Surely that first replicator descended from a system of molecules that had been changing slowly over time and passing through a selective filter, conceptually similar to evolution, right? Scaffolding mate.... scaffolding... Most theories of abiogenesis posit a situation involving a medium acting as a scaffolding in which these original molecules found themselves bound up, later able to exist independently of the scaffolding. From the PHA World Theory, my original introduction of which came from RAZD :
In this self ordering stack, the separation between rings is 0.34 nm. This is the same separation found in RNA and DNA. Smaller molecules will naturally attach themselves to the PAH rings. However PAH rings, while forming, tend to swivel around on one another, which will tend to dislodge attached compounds that would collide with those attached to those above and below. Therefore it encourages preferential attachment of flat molecules such as pyrimidine and purine bases. These bases are similarly amphiphilic and so also tend to line up in similar stacks. This ends up making an effective scaffold for a nucleic acid backbone to form along the bases. A small change in acidity would then allow the bases to break off from the original stack of PAHs and so form molecules like RNA. In other words, this first replicator would not have simply appeared out of the blue, it formed on the back of something extant - mud, crystals, PAH rings, etc. However, despite this, the process of such formation would NOT be subject to mutations and selection, as there would not yet be any unit of selection, or anything to be mutated. I'm CERTAIN I haven't expressed that as clearly and cogently as others could, but hey, I am trying Edited by Briterican, : Fail on first try, had to mutate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8561 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
The only other option seems to be that the first replicator just appeared out of the blue, in one step. Seeming so, if one doesn't look too close. Chemical reactions, even of a good quanitity of mid-sized molecules like aminos or nucleics, don't take up a lot of room. I think about all the little nooks and cranies in every rock across the planet, under the sea, pond, lake, ocean edges and bottoms and I imagine there must be trillions upon trillions of these little test tubes where collisions and reactions are taking place. The timing of these reactions is also quite fast, in relation to waiting for a dental appointment for instance, and I think that over a few million years the probability of some short simple self-replicating chain of molecules natrually coming into being is .. well ... inevitable. Not really "out of the blue" but close, I suppose. Darwin takes it from there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trae Member (Idle past 4334 days) Posts: 442 From: Fremont, CA, USA Joined: |
jar writes: The majority of Atheists I know (and that's probably more than the average) say that it was reading the Bible that caused them to become Atheists. Absolutely. At least in conjunction with history and practical experience with various sects.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Surely that first replicator descended from a system of molecules that had been changing slowly over time and passing through a selective filter, conceptually similar to evolution, right? But how can this "filter" be "selective" if it is not acting on replicators? How would we make this concept meaningful? Would you say that salt crystals are cubic in habit because they have passed through a selective filter?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trae Member (Idle past 4334 days) Posts: 442 From: Fremont, CA, USA Joined: |
Consider someone like Thomas Jefferson. It seems plausible that he could have followed Darwin’s findings. What seems less clear to me would be an assertion that he would have turned atheist. Why wouldn’t the ToE have simply confirmed his deism?
In a later post you indicate your belief that deism died off. Seems that ‘spirituality’ might incorporate those who may have in the past called themselves deists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Before Darwin, there was no very good way to explain life except with the gods. Well, there were ways. They weren't "very" good, but they were as good as goddidit, and indeed they were slightly better in that they explained how life was cruel and how life was inferior to a perfect design. Darwinism was superior in that it had predictive/explanatory power. It explained so much more than either theist or atheist explanations up to that point. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Consider someone like Thomas Jefferson. It seems plausible that he could have followed Darwin’s findings. What seems less clear to me would be an assertion that he would have turned atheist. Why wouldn’t the ToE have simply confirmed his deism? Timeline. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
If not, why does evolution care where life came from? Because its concerned with the Origin of Species ? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.9
|
Slight correction: it is concerned with the origin of Species
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8561 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Because its concerned with the Origin of Species ? The Origin of what? The origin of replicating chemical compounds? The origin of chains of nucleic acids? The origin of proteins? Oh. The Origin of Species. Like how these finches could be so different from island to island? How zebra fish could possibly be so different from Mako shark? How humans could be so similar to apes? Sure, some of us who are interested in Evolution have similar interests in abiogenesis and stellar nucleogenesis and cosmology and chemistry and nuclear physics all stemming from the same question of how this all came about. But this question does not make each of the sciences deal with the same things, now does it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Because its concerned with the Origin of Species ? I think you made our point for us. Evolution is concerned with biodiversity, the production of different species. Evolution is not concerned with the origin of life. As a corollary, the germ theory of disease is concerned with the cause of infectious disease and it's spread, but is not concerned with where the first germs came from. Atomic theory is concerned with how atoms act and are constructed, but it is not concerned with where the first atoms came from. The theory of relativity is concerned with describing how gravity operates, but it is not concerned with where gravity came from to begin with. Need I go on?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tram law Member (Idle past 4732 days) Posts: 283 From: Weed, California, USA Joined: |
Why wouldn't Evolution be concerned with the origin of life?
It seems to be it should be, because how can life evolve without the earliest life form? So somewhere in evolution it seems that there should be some sort of first cause. And evolution should be able to answer that. And the thing is, if evolution doesn't concern itself with that, it will simply give the fundies more cause to blast away at evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Tram law writes:
The field of evolution was established to observe and try to explain the existing species, not origins. They are separate fields. Germ theory, for example, doesn't need to explain the origin of germs, merely how they act to cause diseases.
Why wouldn't Evolution be concerned with the origin of life? It seems to be it should be, because how can life evolve without the earliest life form?. Tram law writes: So somewhere in evolution it seems that there should be some sort of first cause. And evolution should be able to answer that. Evolution will work just the same whether:--There is a natural origin, Tram law writes: And the thing is, if evolution doesn't concern itself with that, it will simply give the fundies more cause to blast away at evolution. They do anyway, so what's the difference? Anything that they think contradicts their various beliefs will be blasted. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tran law writes:
Why wouldn't Cooking be concerned with the origin of life? Can you cook a cow without knowing its pedigree? Why wouldn't Evolution be concerned with the origin of life? If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Why wouldn't Evolution be concerned with the origin of life? Scientific theories don't have wants, needs, or concerns. They are funny that way. What the theory of evolution attempts to explain is why we see the biodiversity we see today, not how life first started. All scientific theories necessarily limit themselves to a subset of all phenomena. The subset that evolution focuses on is how life changes over time.
So somewhere in evolution it seems that there should be some sort of first cause. That first cause, with respect to evolution, would be the first imperfect replication of an organism capable of evolving. It does NOT start with the first transition from non-living chemicals to an organism capable of reproducing.
And the thing is, if evolution doesn't concern itself with that, it will simply give the fundies more cause to blast away at evolution. If they do, it will give us another opportunity to point out their ignorance of how science works and what the theory of evolution actually states.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024