Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,651 Year: 4,908/9,624 Month: 256/427 Week: 2/64 Day: 2/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How Darwin caused atheism
Briterican
Member (Idle past 4036 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 106 of 122 (601857)
01-24-2011 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Blue Jay
01-24-2011 5:13 PM


Don't forget the scaffolding
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Blue Jay, posted 01-24-2011 5:13 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8593
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 107 of 122 (601859)
01-24-2011 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Blue Jay
01-24-2011 5:13 PM


Blue Life
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Blue Jay, posted 01-24-2011 5:13 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Trae
Member (Idle past 4393 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 108 of 122 (601942)
01-25-2011 5:06 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by jar
01-20-2011 8:38 AM


Re: does Darwin or the Bible lead to atheism.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by jar, posted 01-20-2011 8:38 AM jar has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 371 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 109 of 122 (601944)
01-25-2011 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Blue Jay
01-24-2011 5:13 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Blue Jay, posted 01-24-2011 5:13 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Trae
Member (Idle past 4393 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 110 of 122 (601945)
01-25-2011 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ApostateAbe
01-19-2011 7:37 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ApostateAbe, posted 01-19-2011 7:37 PM ApostateAbe has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by jar, posted 01-25-2011 9:07 AM Trae has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 371 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 111 of 122 (601947)
01-25-2011 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ApostateAbe
01-19-2011 7:37 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ApostateAbe, posted 01-19-2011 7:37 PM ApostateAbe has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34064
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 112 of 122 (601957)
01-25-2011 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Trae
01-25-2011 5:35 AM


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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Trae, posted 01-25-2011 5:35 AM Trae has seen this message but not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 2028 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 113 of 122 (604803)
02-15-2011 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Rrhain
01-19-2011 11:19 PM


If not, why does evolution care where life came from?
Because its concerned with the Origin of Species ?
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Rrhain, posted 01-19-2011 11:19 PM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by DrJones*, posted 02-15-2011 1:20 AM jaywill has not replied
 Message 115 by AZPaul3, posted 02-15-2011 1:32 AM jaywill has not replied
 Message 116 by Taq, posted 02-15-2011 11:24 AM jaywill has not replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2293
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.6


(1)
Message 114 of 122 (604804)
02-15-2011 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by jaywill
02-15-2011 12:40 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by jaywill, posted 02-15-2011 12:40 AM jaywill has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8593
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 115 of 122 (604805)
02-15-2011 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by jaywill
02-15-2011 12:40 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by jaywill, posted 02-15-2011 12:40 AM jaywill has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 116 of 122 (604832)
02-15-2011 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by jaywill
02-15-2011 12:40 AM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by jaywill, posted 02-15-2011 12:40 AM jaywill has not replied

  
Tram law
Member (Idle past 4791 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 117 of 122 (612421)
04-15-2011 12:26 PM


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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Coyote, posted 04-15-2011 12:37 PM Tram law has not replied
 Message 119 by ringo, posted 04-15-2011 1:09 PM Tram law has not replied
 Message 120 by Taq, posted 04-15-2011 1:18 PM Tram law has not replied
 Message 121 by NoNukes, posted 04-15-2011 2:16 PM Tram law has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2193 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 118 of 122 (612422)
04-15-2011 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Tram law
04-15-2011 12:26 PM


Fundies and evolution
Tram law writes:
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?.
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.
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,
--Some deity poofed things into existence,
--Time travelers from the future planted the first life,
--Life came from outer space, or
--Other.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Tram law, posted 04-15-2011 12:26 PM Tram law has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 499 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 119 of 122 (612424)
04-15-2011 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Tram law
04-15-2011 12:26 PM


Tran law writes:
Why wouldn't Evolution be concerned with the origin of life?
Why wouldn't Cooking be concerned with the origin of life? Can you cook a cow without knowing its pedigree?

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Tram law, posted 04-15-2011 12:26 PM Tram law has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 120 of 122 (612425)
04-15-2011 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Tram law
04-15-2011 12:26 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Tram law, posted 04-15-2011 12:26 PM Tram law 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