|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Rrhain writes:
Such thoughts are standard fare for your garden-variety, raving Darwinist space-cadet. Humans, with all their intelligence and scientific knowledge and technology, can't produce life from inanimate matter, yet you think mere chance can achieve the feat. It takes a special talent to believe such dreamy nonsense. So we can clearly see through simple observation that life is continually created from non-life. Life is merely a chemical process that takes certain reagents and produces certain products in a long-term reaction. And as we all know from chemistry, it doesn't matter how the reaction gets started and there is no magic to it. You simply need the appropriate reagents with sufficient activation energy to start the reaction. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2268 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Rrhain writes:
I'd like a reference for that please.
Now, right here and now we can create self-replicating, auto-catalysing, homochiral molecules that evolve. After all, that's how life happens in the first place: It takes dead material and turns it into life. The food you eat isn't alive. It's not like you go out and hunt animals to consume their still-beating hearts. The vegetation you eat dies when you cultivate it. About the only thing that's still alive when you eat it are the bacteria and fungi that are on the food you eat, but it isn't like you get your sustenance from them.
Not quite. In your example something that IS alive is consuming non living matter and incorporating it into its body. At best life is creating life. This is entirely different to abiogenesis; dead matter creating life from dead matter. For crying out loud, salt is a rock and yet you continue to incorporate it into your cells in order to keep you alive. So we can clearly see through simple observation that life is continually created from non-life. Edited by CRR, : expanded
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2268 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
caffeine writes: You see evidence A, and you speculate B; because B would leave A behind, wouldn't it? You can't test this by going back in time, but you can test it by asking what else B would leave behind. Assume B, predict the expected consequences (other than A, which you already know), and then check if they're there as well. If they are, your confidence in B is strengthened. B results in A; We see A so B could be a cause. However C and D could also be causes. You need to use inference to the best explanation. Part of that is asking how other evidence is best explained. How about an example? We see fossils in the rocks (A).Evolution over millions of years (B) could result in fossils. A catastrophic worldwide flood (C) could result in fossils. What else B would leave behind? If evolution takes place by innumerable small steps then despite its extreme imperfection we should see some clear cases of slow transition from one form to another. However if C is true we would expect the fossil record to show distinct gaps between forms as a general rule. The fossil record shows only a few questionable transitions. The fossil record generally shows distinct gaps between forms. Therefore C is a better explanation than B. The best explanation is that the fossils were left by a catastrophic worldwide flood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17826 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
That isn't a great test, because detailed transitions are very rare and hard for amateurs to research.
There is a much better test, dealing with an obvious large-scale feature of the fossil record. If the fossil record shows the evolution of species over time there should be an order to the fossil record consistent with that. If the fossil record is due to the Flood, it should be ordered by factors related to the Flood (Creationists list hydrological sorting, habitat, differential escape) And these should really be quite distinct. And the result is a clear win for evolution over the Flood. It's not even close.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Not at all.
CRR writes: The oldest fossils of what we call life are the fossils of prokaryotes. We have those fossils in WA, SA and Greenland. They are found in rocks 3 800 million to 3 500 million years old. They are not wales nor humans nor cockroaches or anything like that. They are prokaryotes. The rocks they are found in were deposited under sea water. Exhibit A. How about an example? We see fossils in the rocks (A). Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Dredge writes: The Bible you claim to follow offers not the slightest hint that the Darwinist tale you believe in is scriptural. On the contrary, it states something very different - creation over a few days. Which is simply additional evidence that the stories in the Bible are the creation of humans and often wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Its been a while for that stupid food pyramid, but hopefully its finally being corrected a bit. Nutritional science does appear to be a pretty poor representative of what science is about. Often the guidance of the day seems to be about as scientific as those back cracking guys (chiropractors). There is way too much bad information out the with MDs names attached to it. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I was thinking as long as I have my hands up they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
OK, here it is; "They suggest that life arose from inanimate matter only once and that all organisms, no matter how diverse in other respects, conserve the basic features of the primordial life. (It is also possible that there were several, or even many, origins of life; if so, the progeny of only one of them has survived and inherited the earth.) " Nothing in Biology Makes Sense except in the Light of Evolution, Theodosius Dobzhansky So then you do agree that a single occurrence of spontaneous generation is not required?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The Bible you claim to follow offers not the slightest hint that the Darwinist tale you believe in is scriptural. It also doesn't talk about gravity, or germs... It misses quite a bit, doesn't it?
On the contrary, it states something very different - creation over a few days. It states that in what it quite clearly a myth. You don't think that snakes can talk, do you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
A link to a whole thread is not very specific. Specifically, which do you think is the best example of a self replicating molecule? Curiously I think they are all equally good examples of the state of the science in 2009. I expect more have been developed since and others have been refined. The point is that it does occur by chemical processes, and that it is one of the important elements of life. [abe] Curiously a 1-minute search finds:
quote: This also begs the question of when "life" develops -- I would say when evolution begins, and that looks like these molecules qualify. I'll add this to the thread ... [/abe] Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : addedby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... No one knows what happened billions of years ago. Scientists who think they do are egotistical bs-artists. Curiously I said it is what the evidence shows. If you disagree with the time then take a crack at [tid-6288] Self-replicating molecules are several universes away from even the simplest self-replicating organism. So you agree that it is a building block for what we need for a self-replicating organism. Can you tell me how we would determine when a self-replicating organism was developed? What does it need to have? When does it become "life" (and how do you define "life")?
Assumed to be pre-biotic. But really just a guess. Actually they are organic molecules that are currently used in all life as we know it. Fully developed and ready to be included in a developing life form. Therefore the development of life does not need to develop these molecules, just use them. That sounds like the definition of pre-biotic ...
quote: Not a guess, rather it's fact.
More guesswork. An educated guess. They exist in space, near earth and in the far reaches. All other elements and molecules seem to occur as a result of stars and nova, both making elements heavier than hydrogen and forming molecules as the nova gas clouds condense. Of course they could be planted in space by god/s seeding the universe to create life. That requires evidence of god/s to be more credible than the nova hypothesis. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Dredge writes:
So you reject astronomy too? Because what astronomers are seeing today is what happened a long time ago.
No one knows what happened billions of years ago.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Dredge writes: An irrelevant point of semantics, That is what your entire argument is about, semantics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Dredge writes:
Read the first chapter of the book of Genesis in the Bible. That would be superstition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
CRR writes: For Charles Darwin it appears that common ancestry was the assumption for which natural selection provided an explanation. For modern scientists it is a conclusion, not an assumption. We have the evidence demonstrating common ancestry.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024