Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
29 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 28 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,865 Year: 16,901/19,786 Month: 1,026/2,598 Week: 272/251 Day: 0/43 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What i can't understand about evolution....
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 466 of 493 (494672)
01-17-2009 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 464 by Buzsaw
01-17-2009 5:30 PM


Other people's opinions
I suggest Buz, that you don't suggest that you know what other people think. Like everything else you get that wrong too.

If you want to discuss Jar's beliefs you know where to find him.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 464 by Buzsaw, posted 01-17-2009 5:30 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 467 of 493 (494673)
01-17-2009 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 463 by Kapyong
01-17-2009 4:39 PM


Re: Starting from the Root
kapyong writes:

Peg writes:


but its one thing to say that evolution is how species evolved from other species then not back up where the species began in the first place
thats why they are very much linked together

Yes, they are linked - one follows the other.
But so what?
They are DIFFERENT things, one following the other.

That would make them essentially dispensational, but no; dispensations end with some significant event, somewhat like the linkage of a chain where one link observably ends and a different link observably begins. What observable event dispensated/categorized one event (abiogenesis) from the other (evolution)?


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 463 by Kapyong, posted 01-17-2009 4:39 PM Kapyong has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 468 by Capt Stormfield, posted 01-17-2009 7:05 PM Buzsaw has responded

Capt Stormfield
Member
Posts: 403
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 468 of 493 (494681)
01-17-2009 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 467 by Buzsaw
01-17-2009 5:44 PM


Re: Starting from the Root
Buz wrote:

"What observable event dispensated/categorized one event (abiogenesis) from the other (evolution)? "

The appearance of an imperfect replicator.

Capt.

(First post here, will review the quoting technique, etc. before saying much more.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 467 by Buzsaw, posted 01-17-2009 5:44 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 469 by AdminNosy, posted 01-17-2009 7:12 PM Capt Stormfield has not yet responded
 Message 470 by RAZD, posted 01-17-2009 7:12 PM Capt Stormfield has not yet responded
 Message 471 by Buzsaw, posted 01-17-2009 9:50 PM Capt Stormfield has not yet responded

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 469 of 493 (494682)
01-17-2009 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 468 by Capt Stormfield
01-17-2009 7:05 PM


Welcome
Welcome aboard, Capt'n.

If you use the peek button at the lower right of a post you can see exactly what some type to get the result you see.

Enjoy your visit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 468 by Capt Stormfield, posted 01-17-2009 7:05 PM Capt Stormfield has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20119
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 470 of 493 (494683)
01-17-2009 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 468 by Capt Stormfield
01-17-2009 7:05 PM


Re: Starting from the Root
Welcome to the fray Capt Stormfield,

The appearance of an imperfect replicator.

Subject to natural selection ...

(First post here, will review the quoting technique, etc. before saying much more.)

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.

For other formating tips see Posting Tips

If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):


... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formated with the "peek" button next to it.

Go to Forum Proposed New Topics to post new topics.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by 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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 468 by Capt Stormfield, posted 01-17-2009 7:05 PM Capt Stormfield has not yet responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 471 of 493 (494699)
01-17-2009 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 468 by Capt Stormfield
01-17-2009 7:05 PM


Re: Starting from the Root
Capt Stormfield writes:

Buzsaw writes:


"What observable event dispensated/categorized one event (abiogenesis) from the other (evolution)? "

The appearance of an imperfect replicator.

Hi Capt. A hearty welcome to EvC. I'm happy to be your first respondent.

Would you mind elaborating on the difference in the imperfect replicator and the perfect replicator relative to the abiogenesis of life, and relative to how the transition event from abiogenesis to biogenesis is observed? Is abiogenesis just an assumption relative to the oldest observed acclaimed evidenced event of biogenesis which effects evolution?

Am I making any sense?


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 468 by Capt Stormfield, posted 01-17-2009 7:05 PM Capt Stormfield has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 472 by RAZD, posted 01-17-2009 10:14 PM Buzsaw has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20119
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 472 of 493 (494702)
01-17-2009 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 471 by Buzsaw
01-17-2009 9:50 PM


Re: Starting from the Root
It's simple, Buz

Would you mind elaborating on the difference in the imperfect replicator and the perfect replicator ...

A perfect replicator would not evolve, it would always be the same.

... relative to the abiogenesis of life, ...

The imperfect replicator make similar copies with variations, and the ones that are better at replicating become more prevalent.

Ones that are protected by a membrane are more likely to survive and keep reproducing.

There's a youtube video upthread that shows this process, from Message 268:

quote:
To help you come up with an answer to that question, here is a very simply 10 minute summary of their work:

Please let us know exactly why these people are not 'smart scientists'. There are more summaries at this site


... and relative to how the transition event from abiogenesis to biogenesis is observed?

When does a system of replicating molecules inside a membrane structure become life? What is the definition of life?

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by 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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 471 by Buzsaw, posted 01-17-2009 9:50 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 474 by Buzsaw, posted 01-17-2009 11:50 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20119
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 473 of 493 (494704)
01-17-2009 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 362 by Peg
01-11-2009 4:35 AM


Peg - you're wanted on the "fraud\hoax" thread ...
Hi again Peg

there have been many scientific frauds in the recent past that show that some will go to extraordinary lengths for evolution

You're wanted on the Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes thread

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by 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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by Peg, posted 01-11-2009 4:35 AM Peg has not yet responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 474 of 493 (494716)
01-17-2009 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 472 by RAZD
01-17-2009 10:14 PM


Re: Starting from the Root
Thanks RAZD. I'll need to mull this all over before thinking of attempting a response.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 472 by RAZD, posted 01-17-2009 10:14 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 475 of 493 (494736)
01-18-2009 7:36 AM


Evolution and Abiogenesis
Apparently one of the most common things creationists don't understand about evolution is that it doesn't include abiogenesis. Evolution and abiogenesis are clearly related to one another, but just as clearly not the same thing.

Why this particular distinction is so difficult for creationists to accept cannot be due to any complexities or difficulties with the concept. After all, it's very analogous to the human life cycle we're all so familiar with and have no problem understanding. Humans are conceived, born, and grow, and these processes of conception, pre-natal development, birth, and growth are separate areas of study. Obviously they're all closely related, they're all about a single human being, but they are not the same thing.

So if instead of natural conception God were to conceive a child within a women's womb, how would that change the subsequent pre-natal development, birth and growth? We have an actual example of this. Jesus was conceived by God, but he still developed in the womb, was born, then grew to adulthood, just like all other children who were not divinely conceived.

God could have created the first life just like he conceived Jesus. Jesus's development was the same as all other children after his divine conception, just like evolution was like all other natural processes after the first life. Maybe the first life was divinely created, maybe it was a result of natural processes, that's a debate for another thread, but whichever it is, evolution would be the same in either case. The question here is, what is it about the first life that makes it so difficult for creationists to understand that it is not the same thing as evolution.

One gets the feeling that this comprehensional wall has nothing to do with creationist comprehension skills and everything to do with not wanting to give up a cherished notion about evolution, as well as one of their most powerful talking points when proselytizing against evolution. They don't want to give up being able to say, "If you believe in evolution then you don't believe God created the first life, you don't believe in Adam and Eve, you don't believe in the flood, and you don't believe in the Bible as the word of God."

The only problem with this argument is that it's not true, which brings me to the one biggest thing I don't understand about creationism: why the most religiously conservative among us seem unconcerned about getting their facts straight or misrepresenting the truth. They apparently have so much faith in the honesty and accuracy of each other that they can't believe they would ever lie or be mistaken, so if they hear from a Christian source something negative about evolution, then they'll believe it forever and forever, no matter how much factual information is actually presented to them.

--Percy


Replies to this message:
 Message 476 by ICANT, posted 01-18-2009 8:16 AM Percy has not yet responded
 Message 478 by Coyote, posted 01-18-2009 12:06 PM Percy has not yet responded
 Message 480 by subbie, posted 01-18-2009 12:54 PM Percy has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6188
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 476 of 493 (494741)
01-18-2009 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 475 by Percy
01-18-2009 7:36 AM


Re: Evolution and Abiogenesis
Hi Percy,

Percy writes:

One gets the feeling that this comprehensional wall has nothing to do with creationist comprehension skills and everything to do with not wanting to give up a cherished notion about evolution,

Percy maybe it is because as a Bible believer evolution really creates a problem.

In the Bible we have a full grown man and woman.

We have full grown animals birds etc.

In evolution once life appears you have a process that begins with that first life form from which all life forms evolve.

Those are two totally different processes.

I know many say God just kick started everything and let it evolve.

Well that is not what the Bible says.

It says God formed man and breathed into his nostrils and he became a living soul.

It says he called the plants forth out of the ground.

It says he called the animals forth out of the ground.

So maybe the problem is that evolution and Biblical creation are incompatible views.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 475 by Percy, posted 01-18-2009 7:36 AM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 477 by Buzsaw, posted 01-18-2009 11:43 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 477 of 493 (494764)
01-18-2009 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 476 by ICANT
01-18-2009 8:16 AM


Re: Evolution and Abiogenesis
You pretty much nailed it, ICANT. The two camps question and debate the tennants of one another's positions. Both camps get converts due to the debates, research, etc. Genesis literalist creationists who once believed in evolution have been convinced otherwise. The same goes for former Genesis creationists who have come to embrace evolution.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 476 by ICANT, posted 01-18-2009 8:16 AM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 488 by fallacycop, posted 01-18-2009 7:00 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 365 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 478 of 493 (494767)
01-18-2009 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 475 by Percy
01-18-2009 7:36 AM


Re: Evolution and Abiogenesis
...which brings me to the one biggest thing I don't understand about creationism: why the most religiously conservative among us seem unconcerned about getting their facts straight or misrepresenting the truth. They apparently have so much faith in the honesty and accuracy of each other that they can't believe they would ever lie or be mistaken, so if they hear from a Christian source something negative about evolution, then they'll believe it forever and forever, no matter how much factual information is actually presented to them.

Scientists work from evidence, and construct theories to explain that evidence.

Creationists do not do this. They work from belief, and fit the evidence into that belief.

If something scientists come up with contradicts their belief, we must be wrong. They may not know how we are wrong (many know little about science), but they know we are wrong. For this reason no amount of evidence that we might present will make any difference.

That's where the "what if" stories come in. When presented with a scientific fact that seems to contradict their religious beliefs (for example, that radiometric dating shows an old earth) a logical response to them would be "What if radiometric dating is wrong?" or "What if the decay constant was different in the past?"

When presented with evidence that contradicts these what ifs, they simply come with another what if because their belief supersedes any scientific evidence or theory. Again, they may not know how science is wrong, they just know that it is and the exact details don't much matter.

At least that's they way it seems to me from several years of debating creationists on the web.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 475 by Percy, posted 01-18-2009 7:36 AM Percy has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 479 of 493 (494772)
01-18-2009 12:44 PM


Replies to Messages 476, 477, 478
The last paragraph of my Message 475 wasn't meant to divert the topic, but I will say that while the name of this thread is, "What I can't understand about evolution...", from a evolutionist perspective the title would be, "What creationists never understand about evolution".

The extended discussion about abiogenesis and evolution and why they are not the same thing is just one example, though a pretty good one, of something creationists usually don't understand. Instead of seeking things that are actually wrong with evolution, creationists seek criticisms of evolution that sound good to other conservative Christians who share their lack of familiarity with science, and then they propagate them over and over and over again, whether or not they are true. The lack of concern about honesty and accuracy is ironic, but not the topic of this thread.

So creationists can continue to argue that evolution is wrong because a natural origin for life is impossible, but this argument only has traction with other conservative Christians, presumably because they have a need to believe evolution must be false. Of course the argument has no traction whatsoever in scientific circles just because of the implicit illogic all by itself, let alone all the other considerations.

If I wanted to make equally dishonest and inaccurate arguments against Christianity I might assert that because we cannot replicate the birth of Jesus that there's no real proof it ever happened. And that since we can't prove Jesus was ever born, therefore his ministry never happened. Any Christians out there think this is a good faith argument?

So why is it a good faith argument for creationists to say that because we cannot replicate a natural origin for life, therefore there's no proof it ever happened, and therefore evolution is not possible.

I agree with Coyote that creationists look at things differently. They know what is true, and all evidence is interpreted in light of what they already know is true. For a creationist, the validity of any evidence is not measured by any scientific criteria, but by the degree to which it supports what they already know is true. This is why creationist arguments are full of post hoc rationalizations.

Abiogenesis (a natural origin for life) and evolution (change in species over time) are not the same thing. Creationists can start trying to wrap their minds around this fact (and we're willing to help as much as we can), or they can be wrong, but there aren't really any other options. It isn't possible to drag someone kicking and screaming to an understanding.

--Percy


  
subbie
Member (Idle past 3 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 480 of 493 (494774)
01-18-2009 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 475 by Percy
01-18-2009 7:36 AM


Re: Evolution and Abiogenesis
quote:
One gets the feeling that this comprehensional wall has nothing to do with creationist comprehension skills and everything to do with not wanting to give up a cherished notion about evolution, as well as one of their most powerful talking points when proselytizing against evolution. They don't want to give up being able to say, "If you believe in evolution then you don't believe God created the first life, you don't believe in Adam and Eve, you don't believe in the flood, and you don't believe in the Bible as the word of God."

While all of this is true, I think there's another part to it that you're overlooking. You can find it on almost any creo website, and just about every creo who's posted here has said it at one time or another. They truly and sincerely believe that evilutionist scientists have, as part of their agenda, a plan to disprove the existence of a supreme being. Proving that life evolved would be insufficient to accomplish that; it's also necessary to prove that life began without supernatural assistance. The creo linking of abiogenesis and evolution flows quite naturally from the creo tenet that science in general and evilutionists in particular are dedicated to proving there is no god.


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 475 by Percy, posted 01-18-2009 7:36 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 481 by Percy, posted 01-18-2009 1:51 PM subbie has not yet responded
 Message 482 by Capt Stormfield, posted 01-18-2009 2:22 PM subbie has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019