Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 62 (9042 total)
55 online now:
dwise1, kjsimons, nwr, Percy (Admin) (4 members, 51 visitors)
Newest Member: maria
Post Volume: Total: 885,956 Year: 3,602/14,102 Month: 222/321 Week: 38/44 Day: 33/5 Hour: 3/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Few Questions For Creationists
kuresu
Member (Idle past 1447 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 16 of 86 (481532)
09-11-2008 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by AlphaOmegakid
09-11-2008 1:46 PM


Re: The Answers are in Genesis
I realize that evolution is silent about the origin of life, but origin of life theories rely heavily on evolution.

Well, for having 'studied' evolution for 25 years you seem awfully ignorant. Origin of life theories depend on chemistry, not on evolution. Do you know why origin of life theories (or abiogenesis) does not draw heavily on evolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-11-2008 1:46 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-11-2008 3:41 PM kuresu has responded

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1411 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 17 of 86 (481540)
09-11-2008 2:59 PM


Good posts.
Good stuff from AOkid and ICANT, answering the questions and giving their views. Anyone else?

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1810 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 18 of 86 (481553)
09-11-2008 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by kuresu
09-11-2008 2:28 PM


Re: The Answers are in Genesis
Well, for having 'studied' evolution for 25 years you seem awfully ignorant. Origin of life theories depend on chemistry, not on evolution. Do you know why origin of life theories (or abiogenesis) does not draw heavily on evolution?

Maybe it's not I who is ignorant. Maybe it's thou. Please name just one OoL hypothesis that doesn't rely on evolution by natural selection with self replicating molecular assemblies called protocells.

Every abiogenesis theory relies on the same concepts. You must have natural selection to increase the number and complexity of nucleotides over time. Check them out. See for yourself.

Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by kuresu, posted 09-11-2008 2:28 PM kuresu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by kuresu, posted 09-11-2008 4:18 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

kuresu
Member (Idle past 1447 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 19 of 86 (481561)
09-11-2008 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by AlphaOmegakid
09-11-2008 3:41 PM


Re: The Answers are in Genesis
You must have natural selection to increase the number and complexity of nucleotides over time

There are five nucleotides used by DNA and RNA. In DNA they are adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine. RNA replaces thymine with uracil.

Further, all nucleotides consist of a phosphate and a ribose (RNA) or deoxyribose (DNA). They do not get any simpler, nor complex when used as part of the genetic code. However, they can be incorporated into other compounds (such as ATP, adenisine-triphosphate), but those aren't part of the 'building blocks of life'.

I honestly don't see what natural selection has to do with the construction of these five bases. I can clearly see what chemistry has to do.

Natural selection kicks in when you have DNA (or RNA) in replicating organisms. That's because natural selection, as you're well aware, requires mutations. Mutations are simply the changes in the genetic code from one generation to the next. No genetic code, no expression of the genetic code, no evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-11-2008 3:41 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-12-2008 9:02 AM kuresu has responded

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4524 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 20 of 86 (481566)
09-11-2008 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rodibidably
09-10-2008 10:58 AM


Can you explain to me how natural selection is real.

What I mean is I can compare the rate of reproduction of slightly different organisms, then I get differential reproductive success, natural selection.

But I can also compare varying rocks rolling down a hill, and then I get differential rolling down the hill succes.

But Nature itself does not work by differential rolling down the hill succes, that is just in my mind.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rodibidably, posted 09-10-2008 10:58 AM Rodibidably has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Rrhain, posted 09-12-2008 8:43 PM Syamsu has not yet responded

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1810 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 21 of 86 (481716)
09-12-2008 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by kuresu
09-11-2008 4:18 PM


Re: The Answers are in Genesis
kuresu writes:

Natural selection kicks in when you have DNA (or RNA) in replicating organisms. That's because natural selection, as you're well aware, requires mutations. Mutations are simply the changes in the genetic code from one generation to the next. No genetic code, no expression of the genetic code, no evolution.

By golly I think he's got it! Almost...

You are right, without DNA, metabolism , sometype of cellular wall and reproduction (it's different that replication) then you cannot have evolution and natural selection.

But the problem abiogenesists have is they somehow need to grow these peptide chains from 5-10-15 bases to somewhere around 150,000 bases for the smallest known life form. Read the hypotheses, they all invoke the process of smaller chains in replicating proto cells that mutate and grow over the magical millions of years.

Here is a quote from wiki on the RNA world hypothesis....

wiki writes:

The RNA world is proposed to have evolved into the DNA and protein world of today.

These protocells which couldn't metabolise and produce proteins will evolve through natural selection until they can metabolize and produce proteins like they do today. Evolution in required in the RNA hypothesis.

If you do a simple word search on the wiki article about abiogenesis, you will find the word evolution used some 16 times through out all the hypotheses. And natural selection is used 3 times. Now I know these numbers are really meaningless, but if you read and understand theese hypotheses you will see that your chemicals are evolving and being naturally selected all along the way. All of course without any evidentiary support.

I agree with you that evolution and natural selection is a process which happens to living organisms. The smallest of which we know is a cell. The smallest cell we know has about 160,000 bases. The number of genes is still up for debate. They all have a metabolic system, a cell wall, DNA, and they reproduce (not replicate).

We have no knowledge or evidence that complex cellular arrangements can evolve and be naturally selected. But all of the hypotheses require this mechanism.

And finally as a minor note, life requires something more than chemistry. It requires physics. Energy. Metabolism and respiration and their development is a huge mystery right now.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by kuresu, posted 09-11-2008 4:18 PM kuresu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-12-2008 9:50 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded
 Message 24 by kuresu, posted 09-12-2008 2:12 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 86 (481733)
09-12-2008 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by AlphaOmegakid
09-12-2008 9:02 AM


Re: The Answers are in Genesis
I agree with you that evolution and natural selection is a process which happens to living organisms.

The word "evolution" doesn't always mean the Theory of Evolution as in Darwin's theory on the origin of species.

For example, we could talk about the evolution of cars. They have changed a lot over the years. There is even selective pressure on them from the market.

If you argued against that position because evolution is a process which happens to living organisms then I'd tell you that you were an idiot.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-12-2008 9:02 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-12-2008 1:52 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1810 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 23 of 86 (481772)
09-12-2008 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by New Cat's Eye
09-12-2008 9:50 AM


Re: The Answers are in Genesis
cs writes:

The word "evolution" doesn't always mean the Theory of Evolution as in Darwin's theory on the origin of species.

Not it doesn't. But you decipher the meaning from context. The context of use was in a wiki article on the subject of abiogenesis. So let's look at the context........

wiki writes:

Haldane and Oparin
No real progress was made until 1924 when Aleksandr Ivanovich Oparin reasoned that atmospheric oxygen prevented the synthesis of the organic molecules that are the necessary building blocks for the evolution of life. In his The Origin of Life,[12][13] Oparin argued that a "primeval soup" of organic molecules could be created in an oxygen-less atmosphere through the action of sunlight. These would combine in ever-more complex fashions until they formed coacervate droplets. These droplets would "grow" by fusion with other droplets, and "reproduce" through fission into daughter droplets, and so have a primitive metabolism in which those factors which promote "cell integrity" survive, those that do not become extinct. Many modern theories of the origin of life still take Oparin's ideas as a starting point. Around the same time J. B. S. Haldane also suggested that the earth's pre-biotic oceans – very different from their modern counterparts – would have formed a "hot dilute soup" in which organic compounds, the building blocks of life, could have formed. This idea was called biopoiesis or biopoesis, the process of living matter evolving from self-replicating but nonliving molecules.[14]

Wow, in one paragraph of the goo to you theory, we have the eqivocation of growth, metabolism, reproduction, survival, extinction, and of course evolution. Each one of these fallacious evolutionary steps from goo to cell is a spontaneously generated process. Unlike the inteligently designed "evolving" cars.

There is no question that this pre-life evolution works fallaciously like the real evolution. All with no evidence that such a mechanism exists. But that's OK, I believe in a religious myth just like these scientists do.

I would think anyone who would allow such fallacies in a scientific field of study would be an idiot.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-12-2008 9:50 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by kuresu, posted 09-12-2008 2:16 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded
 Message 26 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-12-2008 2:28 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

kuresu
Member (Idle past 1447 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 24 of 86 (481776)
09-12-2008 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by AlphaOmegakid
09-12-2008 9:02 AM


Re: The Answers are in Genesis
But the problem abiogenesists have is they somehow need to grow these peptide chains from 5-10-15 bases to somewhere around 150,000 bases for the smallest known life form

Ah, I get it. You're not actually talking about nucleotides, are you? See, you said diversification and increased complexity of nucleotides, not peptide chains. Please be more accurate, or else I'm going to have to disemble another false argument.

My point still stands--chemistry, not evolution, is responsible for the creation of nucleotides.

Now then, mentions of NS:
the first is under a discredited OoL, Eigen's hypothesis. Further, NS only enters the picture after hypercycles becamse "quasispecies", which means that, according to this hypothesis, evolution kicks in after all the pieces for life are put together.

the second is when wiki discusses the possible role of bubbles. This seems to be a very vague, incomplete hypothesis (especially the way wiki handles it). NS kicks in when you have a stronger bubble. Reproduction depends on the bubble eventually breaking.

The third deals with autocatalysts, as described by Dawkin's in one of his books. Wiki calls it a "rudimentary form of natural selection". It essentially works by having a community of molecules that can self-replicate and be hereditary and compete with each other.

Evolution:
the first mention is in the set-up. Oparin, in 1924, realizes that atmospheric oxygen would prevent the creation of the molecules that are the building blocks of life. This is in the very first abiogenesis theory, and evolution kicks in, guess what, after you have a mechanism for metabolism and fission of the cell.

the second mention is a little confusing. It's in a wiki section not dealing with the actual hypotheses, but "Early Conditions" at the bottom. It has do with how fast life evolves at the beginning, due to how long it takes water to recirculate.

the third mention is "Step 3: The evolution from molecules to cell", and this hardly strikes me as a reference to biological evolution, but evolution used as change, progression.

the fourth is Bernal's suggestion that "evolution started between steps 1 and 2"

The fifth is in Miller-Urey's experiment. Granted, that's 'chemical evolution', not 'biological evolution'.

Eigen's hypothesis takes number six. Of course, just as with it's mention of NS, evolution is kicked off after quasi-species have formed.

The sixth (and seventh) mention is Wächtershäuser's hypothesis, or the iron-sulfer hypothesis. This talks about "the evolution of (bio)chemical pathways as fundamentals of the evolution of life". His hypothesis has biological evolution take over after the formation of "auto-catalytic sets of self-replicating and metabolically active entities." Note that we are dealing with, as with Miller-Urey, the chemical evolution, not the biological evolution, of very basic life. Once it exists, then biological evolution kicks in.

The eigth mention deals with homochirality, but it is chemical evolution, not biological evolution.

The ninth mention is part of the comparison between genes-first or metabolism-first models, stating "whereas others postulate the evolution of biochemical reactions and pathways first". Note that this is not biological evolution.

The tenth mention comes in the "Clay theory", but it is about a scientist disagreeing with other models of chemical evolution

Number eleven and twelve is discussing panspermia--this time life came from Mars, which is why Earth had life so soon, with so little time for pre-biotic evolution. Eleven is not biological, twelve is, but it is after life is established, as wiki used "continued evolution [on mars]".

The last, number thirteen, is mentioned in the lipid world hypothesis. It states that first you have cell bodies, and then evolution gives you information storing molecules (DNA or RNA). There is no mechanism, however, to support this hypothesis. I would say it's fair to call that biological evolution, though just barely.

Evolution is not used 16 times throughout all the hypotheses (wiki article on abiogenesis), and most mentions of evolution are in fact chemical (or bio-chemical) evolution, not biological evolution.

We have no knowledge or evidence that complex cellular arrangements can evolve and be naturally selected

Well that is patently false. The ToE is predicated on the ability of complex cellular arrangements to evolve and be selected for or against. It happens today. We have plenty of evidence for it.
Unless, of course, like when you mentioned nucleotides and not peptide chains (or even better, DNA/RNA), you mean to say something different.

Now then, why can't life be smaller than 150,000 bases? The smallest (in base number) organism we now of today has the baggage of 3 billion plus years of evolution.

And finally as a minor note, life requires something more than chemistry. It requires physics

Um, all of chemistry relies on physics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-12-2008 9:02 AM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

kuresu
Member (Idle past 1447 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 25 of 86 (481779)
09-12-2008 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by AlphaOmegakid
09-12-2008 1:52 PM


Re: The Answers are in Genesis
You do realize that hypothesis, and the book, are over 80 years old, right? In a field of science that is extremely young, right? That perhaps Oparin, much like Darwin in the Origin of Species, didn't know some things (Darwin had no clue how traits were passed on, a huge part of his theory).

How about quoting something from some more recent research.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-12-2008 1:52 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 86 (481781)
09-12-2008 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by AlphaOmegakid
09-12-2008 1:52 PM


Re: The Answers are in Genesis
Wow, in one paragraph of the goo to you theory, we have the eqivocation of growth, metabolism, reproduction, survival, extinction, and of course evolution.

...and?

Its no bid deal, really. The put quotes around the words they were "equivocating". That shows that they don't literally mean growth and that they are using it as an analogy.

You're just bitching about it because you don't like evilution.

And in the paragraph you quoted, when they use the word "evolution", they are not referring specifically to Darwin's Theory of Evolution. They are talking generally in how things evolve when there is some selective pressure.

So, there's really no problem with the paragraph nor have you supported you position that:

quote:
You are right, without DNA, metabolism , sometype of cellular wall and reproduction (it's different that replication) then you cannot have evolution and natural selection.

There is no question that this pre-life evolution works fallaciously like the real evolution. All with no evidence that such a mechanism exists.

There's plenty of evidence that abiogenesis is on the right track. Just beause there isn't one unifying theory doesn't mean that we're not right so far.

But that's OK, I believe in a religious myth just like these scientists do.

So, in addition to not knowing the difference between spontaneous gereation and abiogenesis, you also don't know what a religion is :laugh:

I would think anyone who would allow such fallacies in a scientific field of study would be an idiot.

Its a good thing that the scientists aren't using those fallacies.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-12-2008 1:52 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1411 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 27 of 86 (481792)
09-12-2008 3:58 PM


Calling creationists
Well, two of our creationists have answered the questions in the O.P. and stated their positions clearly.

It would be interesting if some more would.

Abiogenesis is a very interesting subject too, which is probably why there's a whole fucking forum dedicated to it. :)


mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4718
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 28 of 86 (481817)
09-12-2008 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Rodibidably
09-10-2008 8:35 PM


Re: A bried opinion
Sorry, TIME is my problem. I am a fleeting presence due to limited internet. :( this is why I can only give brief opinions/beliefs.

If it helps the number one reason I am creationist, is to oppose the worldly explanations that don't require, or "remove" God when I see God to be the vital component to the brilliance I see. I feel sorry for those who attribute this brilliance to natural causes alone.

I am a fairly rational person so I don't disallow evolution in my own mind, nor any other possible theory, it's just that I believe the ToE to depend too much on hypothetics and persuasion.

I won't give up on God being involved you see - and sadly, this world is going more and more wrong in it's slide towards naturalism alone being responsible for all this brilliance.

But hey hoe I have nothing against a Christian evo - I have no right, as I have changed my position time and time again because I am open to possibilities.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Rodibidably, posted 09-10-2008 8:35 PM Rodibidably has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Rrhain, posted 09-12-2008 8:54 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 806 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 29 of 86 (481825)
09-12-2008 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Syamsu
09-11-2008 5:31 PM


Syamsu writes:

quote:
But Nature itself does not work by differential rolling down the hill succes, that is just in my mind.

And yet, that's exactly how it works: The reactions that take place now create the products that will be used in the next reactions. The reactions that take place more often now will be the ones that result in more subsequent reactions later on.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Syamsu, posted 09-11-2008 5:31 PM Syamsu has not yet responded

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 806 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 30 of 86 (481828)
09-12-2008 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by mike the wiz
09-12-2008 6:38 PM


mike the wiz writes:

quote:
the number one reason I am creationist, is to oppose the worldly explanations that don't require, or "remove" God when I see God to be the vital component to the brilliance I see.

Then perhaps you can be the very first person to actually answer this question I am continually asking:

Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by mike the wiz, posted 09-12-2008 6:38 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021