Are Scientists Abandoning Evolution?

and I agree with the first statement (but would prefer to substitute "the first life" for "abiogenesis", and really don't care one way or the other about the second (but the "inanimate life" should have been termed something like "non-life").Somehow, life came to exist on planet Earth. It may or may not have been by the hand of God - The first life on Earth might have been an abiogenesis act of God. Or it might have been imported from off-Earth (again, maybe by God's hand). Regardless, it happened.That makes the starting point for (biological) evolution to happen. That's why the theory of abiogenesis and the theory of (biological) evolution are two seperate things.Abiogenesis study is a study of what MIGHT have happened. Any solid evidence that it DID happen is never going to be found.MooseThis message has been edited by minnemooseus, 05-27-2005 07:32 PM

Of course not. There is no such thing as "inanimate life" !
But really, is there actually a solid definition of 'life' ?
I would be interested in hearing yours.Because within my conceptualization, molecules that by chance find a way to replicate themselves in a primordial soup of simple compounds could become increasingly abundant - and complex- - at least until they overexploited their resource base. They wouldn't really be 'alive' with consciousness the way you are, but they would have properties of life and be potential precursers to more complex iterations of 'life'.But we haven't really defined what YOU mean by life yet...This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-28-2005 08:01 PM

"There is no such thing as "inanimate life" !"My point exactly, but I note you obviously seem to think abiogenesis, despite a lack of any real evidence, to be plausible, and as such, I suspect it is part of your belief system.Am I right or not?

Well, that's a bit of a moot point anyway, since there is no such thing as inanimate non-life either. One thing that makes abiogenesis reasonable is the fact that non-life is animated.Mick

You will note that Mick has brought up a very good point.
We can now demonstrate various molecular processes which separately demonstrate various 'animated' properties without possessing all the properties together that would be necessary for them to be considered 'alive' in the common sense fo the word.So once again, please let us hear your definition of life if we are going to debate abiogenesis. Then we will be able to show you how various 'life' properties are exhibited by non-living things.This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-29-2005 07:04 AM

Well, what about the Theory of Evolution as we understand it today would be different if God had "poofed" the first replicating life into existence?

That would depend on the mechanism for the "poof" as you put it. If God has imbedded the creation with a mechanism He created to design and guide to a degree certain processes, or stated another way, to influence the physical world, then it may well be that mechanism is involved in other arenas, including evolution.It may also be that we discover and duplicate that same mechanism for creating life.

How would that not be evolution?If God, for instance, is specifying the outcome of everything that we describe as "random", what's the difference?

"How would that not be evolution?"I would more properly understood as ID."If God, for instance, is specifying the outcome of everything that we describe as "random", what's the difference? "Note my use of the word "influence" which is not the same as specifying. It could be God specifies outcomes, but that's not so much what I am talking about.I am not completely sure though I understand your question.What I am talking about is that maybe some of how "God does things" is embedded in the fabric of how matter, energy, etc,..operate. When I look at the principles of quantum mechanics, I see a whole lot of ideas that are indentical to what spiritual traditions have been saying for thousands of years, and that makes me think some of this spiritual stuff, maybe even how "God-did-it" can be uncovered to a degree by research and testing.

I disagree. ID suggests that an intelligent designer is causing things to happen that would normally not according to the laws of physics as we know them. What you've proposed is that, thanks to God, the laws of physics are pre-programmed to allow humans to occur. You're skipping a step - the part where you prove that there actually is a god worth investigating.

"ID suggests that an intelligent designer is causing things to happen that would normally not according to the laws of physics as we know them."That's not my understanding of ID, unless perhaps we quibble about the part of the laws of physics as we know them. ID does not preclude the idea that we can discover deeper principles in physics that attest to ID. By the way, it's no accident that there tends to be more physicists open to the concept of ID than some other fields."What you've proposed is that, thanks to God, the laws of physics are pre-programmed to allow humans to occur.""Maybe so, but I am not necessarily stating that "allow humans to occur" means evolve necessarily. It's a bit more nuanced than that.Also, allow to occur is too wishy-washy. I am flat out stating quantum physics appears to be a field of science involving the principles of mysticism, spirituality, probably miracles, and a whole host of concepts on how the world really is that were previously espoused by spiritual traditions.

Then apparently you don't understand ID. That is, after all, how ID'ist propose to detect the influence of design - by the detection of outcomes that are too unlikely to have occured according to the laws of physics as we understand them. And I'm going to flat-out tell you that's bullshit, and just a symptom of the fact that you can find similarities between any two bodies of "knowledge" if you look hard enough. Are you familiar, at all, with the Law of Fives?I mean, for every "principle" of mystical BS you can mirror in quantum models, there's ten that are out in la-la land. It's simply a demonstration that even a stopped clock is right twice a day - if you spew enough bullshit some of it is bound to approach a truth.

"I mean, for every "principle" of mystical BS you can mirror in quantum models, there's ten that are out in la-la land."Prove that. Take the biblical view of reality including spirituality, and show the la-la land "principles" that don't line up.On the subject of ID and physics, IDers claim the opposite. They claim the anthropomorphic principle as evidence for God to have created the physical laws with man in mind.If you have read references to the laws of physics, they were probably references to classical physics, and hence the term "as we know them" that you seem to reference.But maybe you can educate me. Maybe I am espousing a new brand of Intelligent Design and need to write my own book or something...?This message has been edited by randman, 05-29-2005 11:54 PM

Well, you first. You have to show me the principles, if you can call them that, that line up between quantum mechanics and your flavor-of-the-week mysticism. That's not a claim of mainstream ID. I'm not sure what you're referring to. To the extent that an amateur can be, I'm familiar with both classical relativistic and QED models in physics. If you think the Anthropic principle is proof of design, you need to know that you're two decades out of date. You're not familiar with the Kane-Perry-Zytkow paper? (Not the first, but very definitive.)

quote:

---

Kane, G. L., M. J. Perry, and A. N. Zytkow, 2000 (28 Jan.). The beginning of the end of the anthropic principle. New Astron. 7: 45-53.

---

This message has been edited by crashfrog, 05-30-2005 12:03 AM

"Well, you first. You have to show me the principles, if you can call them that, that line up between quantum mechanics and your flavor-of-the-week mysticism."Anton Zellinger pointed out in stating the findings of quantum physics that all things exist first and primarily as information that this was a "very old idea", and quoted the gospel of John; "In the beginning was the Word..."So principle one is the nature of what is the root of physical existence. It is not physical form since quantum physics shows that a probability of form exists, that the pattern is what exists, and the matter and energy seen are merely products of that information pattern interaction with the universe.Point 2 is that what causes form to take place is interaction with consciousness. My understanding is consciousness-based interpretations of QM effects is dominant. Some here have agreed with that, and some disagreed.What interests me is how, for example, Jesus claims that a state of consciousness, which he called faith, could interact directly with the physical universe. We do not see yet quantum physics showing how consciousness can effect miracles, but we do see how the general, biblical principle of sowing and reaping (from thoughts, words, etc...) can have an affect directly on the universe through this connection, just as the Bible states.To understand this a little more, I give you a famous quote by Max Plank. Unfortunately I do not have the full quote handy, but it illustrates what I am talking about."All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter."
- Max Planck, Nobel Prize-winning Father of Quantum TheoryWhat the Bleep Do We Know!? | Page not foundWhat he says in the full quote is that basically what we think of as matter is not self-existing matter at all but comes into existence "by virtue of a force" which it is logical to assume is a conscious and intelligent Mind. That sounds like ID, by the way, but let's don't digress.What QM suggests is that energy patterns are what constitutes material, and it moves, vibrates, etc,...at different frequencies and patterns. That supports the biblical idea that thoughts and actions can have a "seed" effect in the universe as a whole. The reason is that it is unscientific to think that the energy of thought is different than the energy that makes up matter, the force that emanates from a "conscious and intelligent Mind."It's getting late, but just about all the basic discoveries of QM have strong coorelations with truths in spiritual traditions about what constitutes physical reality.I've mentioned the entanglement aspect a little which indicates there is the existence of a realm tied to the normally observable world around us, but which is invisible and contains connections which manifest superluminally. Has the basic qualities of the spiritual realm many traditions, including the Bible have depicted, and even explains how prophecy might work in the sense of seeing future or past events. Superluminal means that it works at a differant rate of time, and logically ought to be able to be used to access past and future present points informationally.Miracles are given very strong scientific backing in QM, at least as far as not violating the laws of physics. Take the concept of quantum tunneling. Classical physics, for example, would say it is impossible to throw a ball completely through a wall without it seeming to touch it, nor damage the wall. The ball will always bounce back, or perhaps break the wall, but it cannot just sail right through a solid wall, such as a solid wood wall.Quantum physics says the exact opposite, that there is by the laws of physics always a slight chance that the ball will go right through the wall not seeming to even touch the wall, no indentation, no damage to the wall or the ball.With that, I bid you good-night unless I respond to you on another post. I've got a few I would like to respond to, and it is getting late.This message has been edited by randman, 05-30-2005 01:50 AM