|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution has been Disproven | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Why is abiogenesis tied to the theory of evolution? Well if life didn't arise from non-life via purely natural processes there is no reason to infer life's diversity arose via purely natural processes. It is that simple. How odd. Many major creationist sites claim that life arose from non-life (by the action of God) and that diversity arose after that (by modification within kinds) by natural processes. They just disagree on the degree of modification. Another view is taken by the majority of Christians (and individuals of other faiths). That is, God caused the raise from non-life (either directly or establishing a universe in which it would happen) and then allowed His laws to unfold through organic evolution. You logic has a hole in it. Life could arise by natural or supernatural processes but that does not force it to diversify by the same processes that caused it to arise. Why should they be tied that tightly together. If life did arise by supernatural processes then yes, I agree, the possiblitiy of the diversification by supernatural processes at least becomes a possibility. However it is not required. Also, while we don't know the details of how life arose (by whatever process) we do know that the diversity (or at least a lot of it) [i]can/i arise by natural processes. This is agreed to by many creationists as noted above. Somehow we got from 1,000's of "kinds" 4500 years ago (to make the ark work out) to 1,000,000's of species sometime back around 2 or 3 thousand years later. Therefore even if life arose by supernatural means lots of diversity happened by natural means.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
NosyNed please try to use what I post in context. God creating life is not life arising from non-life via purely natural processes.
Please provide a reference that supports that the majority of Christians adhere to your statement. I have always observed the contrary- that the majority hold to a special creation. That being the diversity arose from the originally created kinds. NosyNed:If life did arise by supernatural processes then yes, I agree, the possiblitiy of the diversification by supernatural processes at least becomes a possibility. However it is not required. John Paul:Lol! No supernatural processes are required. Just the design to evolve. And yes if life was designed to do so it could evolve/ vary very rapidly under specific conditions. Also many species were not required aboard the Ark. For specifics please read "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study" by John Woodmorappe. He places less than 16000 animals aboard the Ark- insects and aquatic animals not among them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
Ya Rei I have this argument before. Evolutionists try to distance themselves from abiogenesis for obvious reasons.
Again why would anyone infer life's diversity arose from purely naturalistic processes (i.e. not designed) if it didn't arise by them? The inference becomes no more than a belief- which is what the theory of evolution is anyway- a belief that the diversity of life owes its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms that just happened to have the ability to self-replicate. As if errors could lead to the diversity- evidence please...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
He places less than 16000 animals aboard the Ark- insects and aquatic animals not among them. Ah, so you are an evolutionist, then? After all evolution is the only way to get from 16,000 animals to 80 billion species. Actually since you're talking about 79 billion new species in 3000 years you're really a kind of super-evolutionist, I guess...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
No crashfrog I am not an evolutionist. I was but I grew out of it. The type of "evolution" I am talking about does not require any new genetic information whereas the type of evolution portrayed by the theory of evolution requires quite a bit of new genetic information to arise.
Again I said nothing about a timeline. Please stop trying to pin one on me. Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The type of "evolution" I am talking about does not require any new genetic information whereas the type of evolution portrayed by the theory of evolution requires quite a bit of new genetic information to arise. So, you don't think you need new information for bacteria to digest nylon? You don't think you need new information for a single dog-like ancestor pair to give rise to wolves, Basset hounds, jackals, and hyenas? Well, come to think of it, I don't think you do, either. I don't think there's any information in DNA at all. Just chemical structure. And there's absolutely no physical law that prevents the random creation of new chemical structures.
Again I said nothing about a timeline. Please stop trying to pin one on me. Thanks. Oh, I'm sorry. Since you were promoting Woodmorappe's model I assumed you were using Woodmorappe's timeline. If you're going to pick and choose from models, though, you might make that a little more clear. And you might as we answer the question: how long do you think all this evolution (since that's what it is; new species arising) took?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
Bacteria evolving into bacteria does not help your case. Neither do the variations of wolves & dogs. You need eyes from the eyeless, bones from the boneless, limbs from the limbless and many other structures there were not there at one point in time.
As for Woodmorappe I don't remember reading about a timeline in his book, but it has been a few years. How long did it take? We have already observed a new species of mosquito arising in 40 years. We have seen phenotypical changes in well less than that- differences caused by geological isolation. However in each case the organism is still basically the same.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You need eyes from the eyeless, bones from the boneless, limbs from the limbless and many other structures there were not there at one point in time. I assume then that you'd accept organisms with primitive eyes, primitive skeletal structures, and primitive limbs as evidence for evolution, then? After all, you wouldn't be the kind of guy who would ask for a certain type of evidence and claim it isn't evidence at all when presented with it, would you? Surely you wouldn't be that dishonest?
However in each case the organism is still basically the same. What the hell does that even prove? At some level, all life is basically the same - it all relies on carbon chemistry, uses homochiral amino acids, catalyzes chemical reations to support life processes. You'll have a hard time convincing me that a jackal and a chihuahua are "basically the same" without criteria that can be used to prove that humans and chimpanzees are "basically the same" as well. This is why nobody but the ignorant take creationists like you seriously. You handwave away things that scientifically, you need to quantify. How similar is "basically the same"? How can you argue from "basically the same" if that can mean whatever you decide it to mean?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Uh, crash, you're out by about 3 or so orders of magnitude
Off the top of my head the estimates for species are about 10 million. It is still pretty fast evolution though. Really, really fast!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
Unfortunately for you, your argument is false. We do have evidence that natural processes are rsponsible for the diversification of life. So what you are really saying is:
"Why is evolution tied to abiogenesis ? Because creationists want an excuse to ignore the evidence for evolution" Which certainly seems to be the truth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Off the top of my head the estimates for species are about 10 million. Is it? I've heard a lot of numbers, I guess. They're all estimates, pretty much. But there's certainly not less than 10 million, anyway.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: quote: So, given preexisting homochirality of RNA (and some particular conditions) homochirality of amino acids could occur. That doesn’t address the question of how homochirality arose. In addition, no mention is made of the amino acids polymerizing, so they appear to just be individual, free amino acids: that is, bonded to ribonucleotides but not to each other. Hence, no proteins or even polypeptides.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: quote: Wrong. The diagram you showed includes protein catalysts implicitly. Under non-enzymatic reactions carried out using racemic mixtures, both enantiomers of ribose are incorporated into growing chains leading to enantiomeric cross inhibition and termination of chain growth. By the way, another reason we can tell that your diagram uses some kind of catalyst is that 5’-activated RNA nucleotides tend to form "incorrect" bonds spontaneously: the two nucleotides preferentially bond between the 5’ carbon of one nucleotide and the 5’ carbon of the other; then between the 2' of one and the 5' of the other; and third, as in biological RNA, between the 3' and 5' carbons. Also, triphosphates are not what OOL researchers typically use when working with ribonucleotides. ****************************Off the topic, but I was at first confused by the diagrams. All diagrams I have seen of RNA/DNA show the 3’ carbon on the left of the 2’ carbon. It’s as if the diagrams are mirror-reversed from left to right. It took a few seconds for me to reorient. ***************************Gee, looks like I was more thrown off that I thought. I just noticed that the diagram shows "RNA polymerase", the biological enzyme that synthesizes RNA polynucleotides. [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 12-18-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sog345 Inactive Member |
Evolution does require life to come from non-life. If life was already here then who made it. The computer your sitting in front of had a designer; I think we all agree on that. If you see a painting you know there was a painter. If you see a creation there must be a creator. Evolutionists can not answer one very important question. And that is where did TIME, SPACE and MATTER come from. If you have matter but no space, where did you put it. If you have space and matter, but no time when did you put it. The Bible answers those questions in the first verse. Gen. 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. In the begining (that's when) God created the heavens and the earth (that's what).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4158 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
I see what you are saying - God must have had a creator. Personally I don't believe in a god or gods but if you must go down that road, that's a very sensible position to take.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024