Evolution True or False?

InfiniteNature · Post by **InfiniteNature** » Fri May 21, 2004 11:27 am

All I can say is this saying probably plagiarized from somewhere,

the more you know the less certain you are, the less you know the more certain you are.

Me thinks if you are looking for certainty it would be better to be a wee bit ignorant and don't go looking for the answers to all those questions. Because fact is I know a lot, have studied a lot; and I have learned just enough to know that there is very little certainty in life but the ones we bound with our own ignorance of the facts. In other words we construct little worlds with boundaries, and beyond those boundaries is the unknown, of course to take the analogy further the bigger the world the more we know the more we can see various differences that might diverge from what we know to be true.

So anyway keep your world small, and don't go looking for answers; thats the key to having certainty in your worldview.

Otherwise resign yourself to never being certain, indeed it will become more uncertain the more questions and answers you find,

Ah hell maybe the Greeks were right about the universe being based on chaos, maybe we're just in such a small corner that we only think what we have is order.

Oh well this was connected to the whole certainty issue, which was connected to creationism (certainty of god), which is connected to a disbelief in evolution.

SEE how hard I had to rationalize some connection to the topic, ITs not really spamming you know.

maverick8088 · Post by **maverick8088** » Fri May 21, 2004 3:04 pm

Is it? Maybe it's all so simple, and we're just not at a point where we can perceive this. There are, after all, many objects that are relatively simple both to create and understand in our techno-civilization that cultures which still use stone age tools would regard as "of the gods" as being beyond comprehension.

Even the flint arrowhead was designed and created, as were all stone age tools. Any structure, from the Golden Gate bridge to the St. Louis arch, was designed. Any tool from a supercomputer to a screwdriver had someone plan it out. What makes the human body or the universe or anything else different?

The answer, of course, is that people, even scientists, see what they want to see. People assign credence to evidence that fits their opinion, and often refuse to see another's POV. I have listened to your arguments and read every post in this thread, and the only problem I really see is that Evolution has as many blind adherents as Creation.

If you like me thinks that only things that can be objectively demonstrated can be said to exist then god can not be said to exist. Its only if you have additional criteria that allows existence that god can exist. For example you might belive that a firm inner conviction is enough to prove existence of a phenomena.

Abiogenesis has never been objectively demonstrated, yet most Evolutionists believe in at least some form of it. That it is possible for reptiles to give birth to sparrows, however long it took to do it, (allegedly) has never been objectively demonstrated. Yet, most Evolutionists claim this or something similar.

My point on this is beautifully stated by Scayde:

I don't see why it is an all or nothing issue when (Though CE and Tom will no doubt disagree) everything encompassed within the theory of evolution has not been proven. And I am sure the very devout will never require that their faith prove beyond the shadow of a doubt where or why life originated in the cosmos. After all one of the corner tenets of most religeons is that you take it on faith without question. We all pick and choose what we are most comfortable believing, or what makes the most sense to us, or what has the most credible evidence to support it.

The reason it is an all or nothing issue is that the Evolutionists want God removed from the picture. W/o God no one has to answer to anyone for their actions. It is convienient for there to be no Supreme Being.

This has always been my stand: Believe what you want to, it will be sorted out in the end. Either I will be dead, or I will be in Paradise. But, don't call uneducated or backward those that disagree.

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Fri May 21, 2004 3:51 pm

The reason it is an all or nothing issue is that the Evolutionists want God removed from the picture. W/o God no one has to answer to anyone for their actions. It is convienient for there to be no Supreme Being.

I doubt with all seriousness that the goal of all evolutionists is to have a world in which they will not be responsible for thier actions.

I for one believe full heartidly that man is nothing more than an animal. A beast... with the ability to ponder... Other animals are not lesser and we are not supieror. We just have larger brains and the ability to ask "why". Now in the origin I believe god was created out of fear and lack of knowledge. Why the sun rose was unknown and we know for a FACT that Man does not act well with uncertanties. So someone creates god. Whenever where ever god did not create us, we created god. Now while these are just my opinions I will further go into detail about why. I believe in some force... some "thing" that helped start everything... Not a being of conciense... I am not so vain to think we resemble hiim her it... I believe it is like a sun to the whole universe... a giant thing that gives nurishment in some form or another. We are just by products of such.

God is a Crutch. Evolution is not the oppisite of religion, it is just a belief. Science is the polar oppisite of god. Science is what saves lives and creates miracles. Microscopes and Hyperdemic Needles save lives, not crosses and pennants.

I look at Religion and in most cases, like 90% I see two things. Pathetic blindness in the sense they wont even listen to other ideals, they are beyond stubborn but trained to ignore positive thought if it does not abide to thier guidelines. Or the worse of the two, cruelness and wickedness disguised as being true or faitful or whatever the hell.

I can quote several instances with Johovah witnesses(and i dont mean three people I mean almost a city of them) in which just one of the most embarrisng and sad acts against a human were performed, and it was because of faith. I watch Americans vote for Bush because he is the one God chose. I see Isrealians and Palestinians I see Osoma Bin Laden i see all this CRAP all this horrible blind easily led sheep crap going on and wonder why people just havent WOKE up.

Religion is what will kill us all and the sad part is it will be those who believe in it, those who feel they are doing the right who will die happy while all us others who have gotten past the ghost stories and the tales of giants and fire falling from the sky who will have to watch thier families die...

I am sorry I got off on a tangent and if this is improper I will cut and post in my own thread... I just wanted to state.

Evolution is logical... believable. We can see the apes we can see the connections in our brains we know we are mammals...

Religion is hope, faith, belief.... All things that by definition wont and cant be proven, for a reason too. Its a hell of a lot easier to get people to follow you if they cant disprove you.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Fri May 21, 2004 4:00 pm

Hello again Maverick! If you don't want to debate this subject it's of course entirely up to you, but you cannot expect to post statements that go against all current knowledge and scientific data unanswered!

In my post above, I outlined a few points I find of utmost importance for any debate, and already see how these points have become relevant. I will refer to them below.

Originally posted by maverick8088
If that is the case, does that mean that automobiles, houses, watches, computers, television sets, etc. have no designer?
<snip>
So, in other words, complexity is not evidence of a design. The world around us is full of complex things, all of them needed a designer. Noone would deny that man designs and builds wonderous things, all of them complex. Why is it so hard to see that infinitely more complex structures like the precision of the universe and the human brain couldn't simply happen?

First, as other has pointed out, what you define as complexity is not necessarity complex in an "objective" fashion, but let's assume that we both define the word "complex" as meaning something like "consisting of many different parts interacting with each other".

Automobiles, houses and computers is very simple compared to for instance the climate system or the immune system. Man-made things can be simple or somewhat complex, whereas natural phenomenen such as a rock, a weather system or an organism can be simple or much more complex than any man made object. I don't understand at all how the mere existence of simple or complex things implicates the existance of a designer? You claim that mere complexity equals the existance of a designer, but you fail to present any valid arguments for this - your only arguments seems to be the same as Behe's - you just believe this yourself, it's a personal conviction.

The most complex things we know of are not man made. Complexity has no necessary association with design. You seem to belive that because humans can contructs objects of some complexity, other things that exist that are even more complex must have a designer. This is a flawed argument. It provides no evidence at all, it's just an analogy.

For that matter tell me, if all evolutionary steps are for the better survival of the species, what purpose does art serve? Poetry? Discussions such as this one? Honestly, why do we have thoughts about the future? Dreams and aspirations are meaningless for the obtaining of food and shelter. Thoughts of beauty are unnecessary and irrelevant.

Here my point 2. Familiar with how the concepts and terms used in the discussion are defined in case there are standard definitions , becomes relevant. Evolution does not say that all changes are for the better survival of the species. The idea that evolution is hierchial and leads to "better and better" survival, is a popular misconception from the 19th century. Evolution is gradual (or sometimes less gradual) change, and it has no intentions, it's not a form of consciousness.

Secondly, what is adaptive and not adaptive in survival context, can hardly be assessed by simply sitting down and thinking of what seems immediately relevant for physical survival and not. Thoughts about the future, for instance, are part of the human working memory system that provides is with the high flexibility and the high social interaction our species has.

Lastly, abiogenesis is a deeply flawed theory. Life cannot spring from non-life.

First, you must know that abiogeneis and evolution are two different things. Abiogenesis deals with how life started on earth. Evolution deals with how life developed, but does not address how life started. You can compare this with epidemiology and surgery: epidemiology deals with the source of a disease and how it is spread, surgery deals with the mechnics around performing a treatment. As you can see there is a principal difference.

I would like to hear your arguments why you believe abiogeneis and the current consensus hypothesis the RNA world, is deeply flawed.
I would also like to hear the arguments behind your claim that life cannot spring from non-life. It has already been demonstrated in scientific experiments, that the proteins necessary for RNA to form, can spring from non life. Do you claim that these experiments are flawed? If so, in what way? Every step in the RNA world-hypothesised sequence of change simple chemicals in the primordial soup -> polymers -> replicating polymers (for instance hexanucleotide or RNA-ribozomes) -> protobiont -> hypercycle -> protobacteria -> bacteria has been demostrated in controlled experiments.

Here are a couple of references, which I really would like to hear your arguments against.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Abstract
I can provide hundreds of more studies and references from controlled experiements, published in the peer-reviewed scientific press.

Spontaneous Generation was disproven centuries ago, and that's all abiogenesis is. Different words, same thing. The protien molecules necessary to make up a D/RNA strand are simply too complex and too fragile to have come together by chance.

What on earth are you talking about? This certainly calls for my point 1, Debating the same topic. What is "Spontaneous Generation? It is not a concept that exist in current biological sciences. Since you claim it is the same as abiogenesis, and also make a statement about RNA and DNA that appears quite ignorant, I must ask you to explain the core concepts of both "Spontaneous Generation" and abiogeneis. 100's of scientific experiments to demonstrate something can happen, but you say " RNA and DNA are simply too fragile and complex to have come together by chance". What makes you believe so? What knowledge do you base your belief on?

In fact, I don't even understand what you mean. "Too complex"? They only consist of a few different proteins? "Too fragile"? In what sense? Can you explain this further?

I remember reading that is something like 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1 even to get them together by chance w/o taking into consideration the volatile environment. Also, with the experiments that go on in order to prove abiogenesis, who does the scientist arranging the experiment represent? Even in the models to simulate chance, intelligent design is inherent.

Your post actually becomes more and more confusing to me. Are you sure that you have read scientific literature about evolution and abiogeneis? It seems like we are not at all talking about the same thing here?

First of all, I'd like to know where you got the figure "100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1 even to get them together" from, and also what "them" you are referring to here. I have seen some Creationism websites (not Jehova's witness websites, so I don't know if it's the same reasoning behind this) that claim that a sequence of 400 proteins is necessary for life. This is not true since there are known bacteria with as small sequences as 32, but that's not so important, lets just look at how probability works here.

But ok, to use the same figure as you do, let's say you have a 1x10^30 chance that a certain sequence will appear. That is a lot, sure. But taken into consideration that you have billions of simultaneous trials going on every second over a period of hundreds of millions of years, it's actually a very small figure.
The early, prebiotic earth had an ocean consisting of 1x10^24 litres. Counting with a moderately dense dilution (ie a moderate rather than high estimate, see this reference:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Abstract), you will have 1x10^50 starting chains, so a good number of viable peptide ligases (such as the Ghadiri ligase, the SunY self replicator, or the Ekland RNA polymerase) would be likely to appear within one year.

Secondly, I don't understand what you mean with "who does the scientists represent". Represent? Themselves, their labs, their universities and their professional fields of course, what else?

However, you most confusing statement in this paragraph is you claim that "Even in the models to simulate chance, intelligent design is inherent". This is totally untrue. What has made you believe this is so? There are no scientific models of how life started on earth, that has an inherent idea of intelligent design. How would such a concept be operationalised into a scientific experiment? Please explain further, and post references. I'm sorry, but again your statements sound like mere personal belief, not conclusions founded on observed facts.

This post became so long, so I have to split it in two parts.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Fri May 21, 2004 4:40 pm

...part II

Simply put Evolution and Abiogenesis are just as faith-requiring as any religion. The scientists who dig the fossils and conduct the experiments are just as prone to human failings as any of us. They see what they want to see. You denounce Dr Behe for writing his own opinions, I say that is what the scientific community has done for years in order to force these theories on us as fact. Evidence can be interpreted many ways and Evolution has been less about let's see if this is true than let's find a way to prove it.

Science and religion are two different things. Scientific method is designed to exclude subjective opinion since it demands controlled, replicated experiements according to certain parameters. Anyone who believes science is faith-requiring (and I know it is popular among some groups to claim this) should first do some reading in scientific theory and method, then make an assessment. Sure all scientists are just as prone to error as any other human being. That's why the Scientific method and it's high demands on replications was designed, in order to make individual mistakes unimportant. One person might make a mistake, but it's unlikely that 1000 different people with make exactly the same mistake.

I denounce Behe for either lying, or being very ignorant but pretend he is knowledgable. There is nothing wrong with presenting your own opinion, but there is something wrong with publishing false statements in a book and claim they are true. Even if you share Behe's opinion, I am surprised that you are not concerned about all the statements he writes that are false.

But most of my points have been covered by Sailor Saturn earlier in the thread, before his/her unfortunate fate. As I said, I just wanted to provide CE with some info on JW beliefs which he seemed curious about on pg 2 or 3. I will read your thoughts on the other two books, and wiegh them accordingly.

Yes, it was a pity Sailor Saturn was banned (it was not at all related to this discussion). She and I had many interesting discussions (not only in this thread), and although she initially believed she knew everything about science, she gradually with discussion, realised she did not and later on I taught her something about science and she taught me something about Creationism. I think it is of utmost importance that people with religious beliefs do not live under the false pretence that science and religion need to conflict and collide, and that science is an enemy or threat to religion. On the contrary, they concern so totally different area of human life, so collisions should be difficult to find!

Young Earth creationism certainly collides with science since it claims that the earth is only 6000 years old and so on. However, the type of creationism that most christian and muslims share, that a god created the universe, the earth and life on earth, but the mechanisms for how this happened is totally in line with science, ie big bang, abiogenesis, evolution - is unproblematic and does not contain any conflicts. The problem as I see it, is that many Creationists erranously belives that science states things that go against their religion, when it does not.

I have the firm opinion that if you are to discuss and debate, you must have knowledge about what you discuss. I will not critisise Creationism, JW:s or anything before I know what these belief systems actually belive and hold as true, and what this is based on. That is also why I am curious about JW-beliefs. I don't know where you live, Maverick, but in Sweden where I live JW:s are classified as a destructive cult. This is because here, JW:s has been threatning and following members that want to leave the group (one of the classification criteria) and also, members have not been allowed to read the bible themselves, but can only gain information about the bible through a senior member who provides his/her interpretations. This is because new members are seen as too ignorant and too vulnerable to read the bible themselves, so they must have a supervisor in order to understand the bible correctly (not being allowed to independently take part of fundamental writings that the belief system is based on, ie a manifest, the bible, the koran etc, is also a classification critera.)

However, I know that different groups or schools often tend to develop quite differently in different countries (you should see the difference between Swedish and US baptists, for instance! Like two different religions.) so therefore I will not assume that you share the same views as Swedish JW:s. In the same manner, I think you or other people that critisise science without being scientists or belonging to the scientific community, should know what science states and how it works, becasue otherwise critisism will be based on misunderstandings and debates will be irrelevant since nobody is talking about the same issues.

maverick8088 · Post by **maverick8088** » Fri May 21, 2004 4:46 pm

So basically - you are saying that there is a force (by you called God), outside our context of universe, from before our concept of time that has created our universe and everything in it?

Ummm... yeah.

Faith is in its whole there because it is something to fall to, something to believe in without proof... by definition faith can not be proven.

This is true if you are speaking of blind faith, which is not biblical.
Heb 11:1 "Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities, though not beheld." IOW, true faith requires logical thought and research

As far as I know viewed at from the religious perspective, God is the only thing that is perfect.

This belongs in a different discussion

So who is this perfect god, and what are his/her/its attributes?

As does this

why couldn't the universe happen?

I don't know. Why couldn't a watch just happen? Why couldn't a computer just happen? The internal combustion engine did not come about because someone took the parts, threw them in a box, and shook. Nor does a mathematically precise building appear because of a pile of steel and an explosion. Accidents are destructive. The universe is too precise, too mathematically perfect to be the result of chaos. Chaos does not cause order, thought and logic do.

because without him, we're just a scarily successful accident of mutation, death, predation and blind luck.

And this doesn't bother you in the least?

the universe is beyond our understanding

I never said it was, I said it was too complex to have arisen by chance.

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Fri May 21, 2004 4:58 pm

@CE I have seen the same destructive cruelness of JW's in Southern California, United States when they forcefully exiled a 16 year old girl from family friends and school. Furthermore prolonged her ability to comminicate with anyone she had known... forced her to live out on her own. Things are different in places and things are the same.... I cant wait for any response to yours from mr maverick... I am always at a tingle when you or fable tangent.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Fri May 21, 2004 4:59 pm

Originally posted by Scayde
I always enjoy reading these threads. I find it amusing that this topic can so drastically polarize people when to me there is no real delima at all. I don't see why it is an all or nothing issue when (Though CE and Tom will no doubt disagree) everything encompassed within the theory of evolution has not been proven.

As I stated in my post above, science and religion does not need to conflict nor polarise, but when extreme statements such as "evolution is a lie" is put forward (as in the beginning of this thread) a conflict must occur, just as if you posted "the earth is flat".

You seem to advocate some kind of middle road, but how do you make a middle road between "The earth is flat" and "The earth is round"? The is is hemispheric?

The problem with what is usually termed "argument of the middle road" (ie something in between two statements is closer to the truth than any of the ends) is that this opens for nothing to be true or false, and for not taking quality of statements into account when assessing the contradictory statements. If I state "Scayde is made of green cheese" and you state "No, I am a homo sapiens", it is clearly not more true that you are 50% made of green cheese, or that the truth is that you are a certain species that is an intermediate life-form between cheese and homo sapiens. My statement is simply incorrect. In the same manner, some subjective experiences, personal opinions and beliefs, are simply incorrect objectively. To say that abiogenesis or evolution could happen is incorrect. We don't know anything of why this happened, a god may or may not have been involved. This we cannot know. But what we can know, is that no god is necessary to explain how the universe, the earth and life on earth, could happen.

maverick8088 · Post by **maverick8088** » Fri May 21, 2004 5:27 pm

JW:s has been threatning and following members that want to leave the group (one of the classification criteria) and also, members have not been allowed to read the bible themselves, but can only gain information about the bible through a senior member who provides his/her interpretations. This is because new members are seen as too ignorant and too vulnerable to read the bible themselves, so they must have a supervisor in order to understand the bible correctly (not being allowed to independently take part of fundamental writings that the belief system is based on, ie a manifest, the bible, the koran etc, is also a classification critera.)

None of those actions would be sanctioned by the Christian Cong. of Jehovah's Witnesses. However, it does sound like some propoganda put forth in France where we have also been classified as a cult. Interestingly, that was put forth by disgruntled members who had their own agendas. Individual study of the Bible is not only encouraged, it is viewed as part of our worship. And we view individuals who wish to leave as free to do so, though it saddens us. They are free moral agents, responsible for their own actions. One might have a question that s/he might go to an elder with but independent thought is not in any way suffocated. Now that that's out of the way.

What on earth are you talking about? This certainly calls for my point 1, Debating the same topic. What is "Spontaneous Generation? It is not a concept that exist in current biological sciences. Since you claim it is the same as abiogenesis, and also make a statement about RNA and DNA that appears quite ignorant, I must ask you to explain the core concepts of both "Spontaneous Generation" and abiogeneis. *snip* I don't understand what you mean with "who does the scientists represent".

Sorry, thought I was clear. Abiogenesis as I understand it, is the theory that life sprung from an organic soup, a self replicating molecule formed by chance interaction of protiens. Spontaneous Generation was disproved by Louis Pasteur in the 19th century. Both theorys, reduced to their basis, say that life can spring from non-life.
With regard to who the scientists represent: In the experiments to recreate life, a gas mixture represents the atmosphere, electric current the lightning, water or some liquid for the sea, or soup. Who is the scientist? It takes intelligence to recreate it.

I have to go before my son destroys my house but I will be back.

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri May 21, 2004 6:07 pm

Originally posted by maverick8088
Even the flint arrowhead was designed and created, as were all stone age tools. Any structure, from the Golden Gate bridge to the St. Louis arch, was designed. Any tool from a supercomputer to a screwdriver had someone plan it out. What makes the human body or the universe or anything else different?

It's not up to me to disprove what you have yet to prove. You've implied a postulate. We might state it this way: that the human body and the universe are created and designed with intent by a specific intelligent maker. That being your statement, you need to provide the evidence backing this up. (And you know this must be a really obvious logical flaw, if I catch it. Because I'm probably among the least logical people on this board, and it's nothing to brag about, let me assure you.)

I should add at this point, I suppose, that I *do* believe in some sort of non-anthropomorphic mover which cannot be called intelligent in any understood sense of the word, that is the universe, created it, and was created by it. Logic has no place on this level. But since as a result this is pure nonsense, everybody should just disregard what I've said and feel a lot better both about themselves, and me, too.

This has always been my stand: Believe what you want to, it will be sorted out in the end. Either I will be dead, or I will be in Paradise. But, don't call uneducated or backward those that disagree.

I wouldn't dream of it; but if you do put up a defense of a certain position, you really have to expect some responses. Hopefully, none of them will make you too defensive over this issue, but CE's learning on this (and other) subjects is quite formidable. I don't agree with her atheistic stand, but I also see no logical defense for the inherent need of an overall creator in the universe. At least, not at this point.

maverick8088 · Post by **maverick8088** » Fri May 21, 2004 6:18 pm

Anyone who believes order come from chaos should meet my son...

On with the show...

A current evolutionary position on life’s starting point is summarized in his book, The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins. He speculates that in the beginning, Earth had an atmosphere composed of carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia and water. Through energy supplied by sunlight, and perhaps by lightning and exploding volcanoes, these simple compounds were broken apart and then they re-formed into amino acids. A variety of these gradually accumulated in the sea and combined into proteinlike compounds. Ultimately, he says, the ocean became an “organic soup,” but still lifeless.

Then, according to Dawkins’ description, “a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident”—a molecule that had the ability to reproduce itself. Though admitting that such an accident was exceedingly improbable, he maintains that it must nevertheless have happened. Similar molecules clustered together, and then, again by an exceedingly improbable accident, they wrapped a protective barrier of other protein molecules around themselves as a membrane. Thus, it is claimed, the first living cell generated itself.

At this point a reader may begin to understand Dawkins’ comment in the preface to his book: “This book should be read almost as though it were science fiction.” But readers on the subject will find that his approach is not unique. Most other books on evolution also skim over the staggering problem of explaining the emergence of life from nonliving matter. Thus Professor William Thorpe of the zoology department of Cambridge University told fellow scientists: “All the facile speculations and discussions published during the last ten to fifteen years explaining the mode of origin of life have been shown to be far too simple-minded and to bear very little weight. The problem in fact seems as far from solution as it ever was.”

The recent explosive increase of knowledge has only served to magnify the gulf between nonliving and living things. Even the oldest known single-celled organisms have been found to be incomprehensibly complex. “The problem for biology is to reach a simple beginning,” say astronomers Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe. “Fossil residues of ancient life-forms discovered in the rocks do not reveal a simple beginning.... so the evolutionary theory lacks a proper foundation.” And as information increases, the harder it becomes to explain how microscopic forms of life that are so incredibly complex could have arisen by chance.

In 1953 Stanley Miller passed an electric spark through an “atmosphere” of hydrogen, methane, ammonia and water vapor. This produced some of the many amino acids that exist and that are the building blocks of proteins. However, he got just 4 of the 20 amino acids needed for life to exist. More than 40 years later, scientists were still unable experimentally to produce all the 20 necessary amino acids under conditions that could be considered plausible.

Miller assumed that earth’s primitive atmosphere was similar to the one in his experimental flask. Why? Because, as he and a co-worker later said: “The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing [no free oxygen in the atmosphere] conditions.” Yet other evolutionists theorize that oxygen was present. The dilemma this creates for evolution is expressed by Francis Hitching: “With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have got started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays.” Rather circular reasoning, isn't it. BTW, this should explain my statement about the structures being too fragile. Interestingly, in his experiment of passing an electric spark through an “atmosphere,” Miller saved the four amino acids he got only because he removed them from the area of the spark. Had he left them there, the spark would have decomposed them.

Although it commonly is asserted that life spontaneously arose in the oceans, bodies of water simply are not conducive to the necessary chemistry. Chemist Richard *ickerson explains: “It is therefore hard to see how polymerization [linking together smaller molecules to form bigger ones] could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primitive ocean, since the presence of water favors depolymerization [breaking up big molecules into simpler ones] rather than polymerization.” Biochemist George Wald agrees with this view, stating: “Spontaneous dissolution is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis.” This means there would be no accumulation of organic soup! Wald believes this to be “the most stubborn problem that confronts us [evolutionists].”

There are over 100 amino acids, but only 20 are needed for life’s proteins. Moreover, they come in two shapes: Some of the molecules are “right-handed” and others are “left-handed.” Should they be formed at random, as in a theoretical organic soup, it is most likely that half would be right-handed and half left-handed. And there is no known reason why either shape should be preferred in living things. Yet, of the 20 amino acids used in producing life’s proteins, all are left-handed!

How is it that, at random, only the specifically required kinds would be united in the soup? Physicist J.D. Bernal acknowledges: “It must be admitted that the explanation ... still remains one of the most difficult parts of the structural aspects of life to explain.” He concluded: “We may never be able to explain it.”

What chance is there that the correct amino acids would come together to form a protein molecule? It could be likened to having a big, thoroughly mixed pile containing equal numbers of red beans and white beans. There are also over 100 different varieties of beans. Now, if you plunged a scoop into this pile, what do you think you would get? To get the beans that represent the basic components of a protein, you would have to scoop up only red ones—no white ones at all! Also, your scoop must contain only 20 varieties of the red beans, and each one must be in a specific, preassigned place in the scoop. In the world of protein, a single mistake in any one of these requirements would cause the protein that is produced to fail to function properly. Would any amount of stirring and scooping in our hypothetical bean pile have given the right combination? No. Then how would it have been possible in the hypothetical organic soup?

Yet greater difficulties for evolutionary theory involve the origin of the complete genetic code—a requirement for cell reproduction. The old puzzle of ‘the chicken or the egg’ rears its head relative to proteins and DNA. Hitching says: “Proteins depend on DNA for their formation. But DNA cannot form without pre-existing protein.” This leaves the paradox *ickerson raises: “Which came first,” the protein or the DNA? He asserts: “The answer must be, ‘They developed in parallel.’” In effect, he is saying that ‘the chicken’ and ‘the egg’ must have evolved simultaneously, neither one coming from the other. Does this strike you as reasonable? A science writer sums it up: “The origin of the genetic code poses a massive chicken-and-egg problem that remains, at present, completely scrambled.”

Chemist *ickerson also made this interesting comment: “The evolution of the genetic machinery is the step for which there are no laboratory models; hence one can speculate endlessly, unfettered by inconvenient facts.” But is it good scientific procedure to brush aside the avalanches of “inconvenient facts” so easily? Leslie Orgel calls the existence of the genetic code “the most baffling aspect of the problem of the origins of life.” And Francis Crick concluded: “In spite of the genetic code being almost universal, the mechanism necessary to embody it is far too complex to have arisen in one blow.”

If a spontaneous beginning for life is to be accepted as scientific fact, it should be established by the scientific method. This has been described as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled.

In an attempt to apply the scientific method, it has not been possible to observe the spontaneous generation of life. There is no evidence that it is happening now, and of course no human observer was around when evolutionists say it was happening. No theory concerning it has been verified by observation. Laboratory experiments have failed to repeat it. Predictions based on the theory have not been fulfilled. With such an inability to apply the scientific method, is it honest science to elevate such a theory to the level of fact?

On the other hand, there is ample evidence to support the conclusion that the spontaneous generation of life from nonliving matter is not possible. “One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task,” Professor Wald of Harvard University acknowledges, “to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible.” But what does this proponent of evolution actually believe? He answers: “Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.” Does that sound like objective science?

British biologist Joseph Henry Woodger characterized such reasoning as “simple dogmatism—asserting that what you want to believe did in fact happen.” How have scientists come to accept in their own minds this apparent violation of the scientific method? The well-known evolutionist Loren Eiseley conceded: “After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.”

InfiniteNature · Post by **InfiniteNature** » Fri May 21, 2004 7:40 pm

Umm as far as your statements go, they are nothing more or less then attempts to disprove spontaneous genesis, they are not evolution.

Fact is we don't know for certain how life started initially, we think we have a good idea, but yes it might be God, or aliens, or maybe even panspermia(life came from somewhere else) which initially started it all.

As to the probability of life starting, we don't know that either, for all we know life starts very easily arising out of a continuous series of complex chemical reactions. Or maybe its a really rare event, one that only occurs once every billion light years or so, that this chance occurrence only really occurred simply because the universe is so big, and that in the billlions of lights years that make up its breadth, something happened that might have been low probability

As to specificity, or the idea that the universe has very specific natural values, values which are very necessary for our type of life. Well yes these values are necessary for our type of life, otherwise we wouldn't be here to observe it all. This idea hearkens back to a very old idea that is still being debated in science, its called the anthropic principle, there are strong and weak versions of it. The strong deals more with the intelligent design aspect, the weak deals with natural stuff. But anyway the central premise is that the universe arose with very specific values, the charge of the electron, strength of the gravitational force, the binding force between atoms, even the relative lumpiness of the early universe, without these values stars would never have formed, nor would planets, nor the elements which make up our type of life.

The anthropic principle states this, now some scientists believe some form of intelligent design is at work here, intelligent does not necessarily mean God but some intelligence. For example one version of the anthropic principle, holds that because we are observing the universe now we are collapsing the quantum waveform which makes up the universe, essentially by observing we define the state of the early universe and thus create it. Then again other ideas hold that yes there is some intelligent design at work; and this is not necessarily unscientific, its a way many scientists with religion reconcile the two systems.

Myself I am in the camp of simple random probability, simply put if the universe is effectively infinite and eternal, the chances of our type of universe with our very specific values, with our type of life are a hundred percent.

But to address the central thing, yes we don't know enough about how life was initially created. We have been able to create simple chains of RNA (which by the way your research is slightly out of date), but nothing capable of self replication, and yes its possible that some form of intelligent design created it initially.

But again back to the point, you make no statements about evolution merely that the initial creation of life is unknown, this is not argued in science, it something which a great amount of research is still being conducted. Evolution though from some starting point is still not disproven, and again fits the facts the best, for now.

maverick8088 · Post by **maverick8088** » Fri May 21, 2004 8:25 pm

I was asked for a response on abiogenesis first, I'll get to evolution when I have more time. At least it's good to see that someone is willing to admit that intelligence is necessary. (not necessarily I.N.)

As I said I'll be back when I have more time, and can formulate a similar response for evolution.

BTW, does this thread have an automatic editing system? Every time I wrote *ickerson the first 4 letters were changed to stars.

The Z · Post by **The Z** » Fri May 21, 2004 11:16 pm

Originally posted by Tom
The evidence for is ofcourse overwhelming but its allways interesting to hear views to the contrary.

well? have you evolved ... punk...

IMO both biblical and evolutionary history are both valid. No one ever said that the Bible was literal and even if it was, from an academic standpoint it's a primary source - meaning it does have facts and history albeit very biased.

Assuming it isn't literal, right from the start you could say "seven days" could mean "seven billion years". Or walking snakes could be Dinosaurs, Adam and Eve who both "supposedly" lived over five hundred years could represent a type of humanoid (Cro-Magnon or Neanderthal or what have you). And the "tree of wisdom" could be evolution; Adam and Eve "evolved" into cognicant beings (after learning they could eat fruit off trees instead of hunting), who understand a whole load of things they never did before (like being naked!). Then again, there's no evidence for the above.

Though I'm Christian, for some reason, I have no idea why, I have never felt that the bible is to be taken literally. I feel that if anything, our existence was on the behalf of scientific happenings and possibly celestial intervention. What if God is just a four-dimensional creature who can travel in time?

Another book that's interesting and about evolution is Carl Sagan's Dragons of Eden, which I found quite boring until I thought about it.

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Fri May 21, 2004 11:37 pm

Originally posted by C Elegans
As You seem to advocate some kind of middle road, but how do you make a middle road between "The earth is flat" and "The earth is round"? The is is hemispheric?

The problem with what is usually termed "argument of the middle road" (ie something in between two statements is closer to the truth than any of the ends) is that this opens for nothing to be true or false, and for not taking quality of statements into account when assessing the contradictory statements. <snip>

To say that abiogenesis or evolution could happen is incorrect. We don't know anything of why this happened, a god may or may not have been involved. This we cannot know. But what we can know, is that no god is necessary to explain how the universe, the earth and life on earth, could happen.

I knew you would disagree

BTW...Hi CE, Good to see you

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Fri May 21, 2004 11:41 pm

Originally posted by RandomThug

And your wrong on peoples opinions never changing. Many people here have changed my opinions here.... even the canuck Aegis has altered my perception a bit. Scaydes given me a slight bit of faith in life... damn texan.

Awww...You sweet talker

*HUG*

maverick8088 · Post by **maverick8088** » Sat May 22, 2004 12:45 am

First of all, I'd like to know where you got the figure "100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1 even to get them together" from, and also what "them" you are referring to here.

Found that Quote for you CE: In 1996 scientists around the world, "armed with their best computer programs, competed to solve one of the most complex problems in biology: how a single protein, made from a long string of amino acids, folds itself into the intricate shape that determines the role it plays in life... The result, succinctly put, was this: the computers lost and the proteins won... Scientists have estimated that for an average-sized protein, made from 100 amino acids, solving the folding problem by trying every possibility would take 10^27 (a billion billion billion) years.”—The New York Times.

I remembered the quote a little different but you get the point.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sat May 22, 2004 11:31 am

Maverick, I must say that after reading your post about what you base your idea of abiogenesis on, my impression is that we are not at all discussing the same thing. From your post, it seems like you haven't based your idea of abiogenesis on the scientific findings and current consensus hypothesis, but on popular and outdated second hand information. This may sound like a harsh assessment, but I will try explain why this is my impression.

First, you have not at all addressed my question above of what it the RNA world hypothesis you find "deeply flawed" and why you believe it is impossible that life can develop from non-life, ie organic molecules can develop from non-organic molecules.

In my post I included a schematic description of how organic molecules are thought to have appeared. Every step in this developement has been demonstrated in experiments that it can happen. That is not to say it actually happened that way, but my point is that it has been demonstrated scientificially that it is possible. You on the other hand, seems to simply repeat a few phrases like "it is impossible", "it is improbable". And in your post, you don't use any scientific references, only some out-of-context quotes from particular persons who state their personal opinions, and some references to a 28 year old popular book. Also, you have not commented on the calculations that show that 1 year is actually enough time for these sequences to appear by chance due to many simultaneous trials. You continue to refer to the "improbablity" of this to happen, but considering the number of trials it is not at all improbable.

You post also conveys some serious misunderstanding of organic biochemistry and life sciences. Your text is full of factual error and incorrect statements, I will try to point out the most severe ones successively as I have time (I am at work now).

I really must ask you: Did you write this post yourself, or did you cut and paste if from Creationists or JW writings? The reason I ask is because I recognise some reasoning and figues in it, which I have previously seen on Creationist propaganda web-sites, for instance the total misunderstanding that Pasteur would have conducted experiments that falsify the hypothesis that self-replicating molecules can develop from non-self replicating molecules. This is simply incorrect, as is your conclusions from the classical Miller-Urey experiment.

If you have written the text yourself, I would like you to post references for you statements, since as I said, the text is full of misunderstandings. If you didn't write the text yourself, maybe you could check what references the original text used, since I am quite eager to find out how so many misconceptions of modern biology could occur. You don't need to believe abiogenesis happened according to the RNA world hypothesis, but before deciding that abiogenesis is unlikely or even impossible, you should at least have some basic knowledge about it, and your post gives the impression that you lack this basic knowledge. This is not at all surprising or wrong in some way since molecular biology is an area that has exploded in knowledge from the 1980's and forward, and you almost need to be a scientist yourself to keep updated with what is happening and what the current conclusions are, but - nobody should have strong opinions about things they are not familiar with, or have only a distorted or, as I think in your case, very outdated image of.

Malta Soron · Post by **Malta Soron** » Mon Oct 11, 2004 11:50 am

[QUOTE=Happy Evil]I can't imagine how one would produce any physical proof of creationism or the resurrection of Jesus.[/QUOTE]

The resurrection of Jesus: where's the body? The Sanhedrin could not show it to prove he was dead. Stolen? By eleven, maybe some more, scared, sad, depresive men and some women? Against a well-trained, well-equiped Roman guard? Don't think so.

Malta Soron · Post by **Malta Soron** » Mon Oct 11, 2004 12:01 pm

Dunno wether this has already been said before (and don't have the time to read 8 pages) (this also counts for my previous post), but IIRC, the raising line in evolution (primitive creature --> advanced creature) has never been proved.
F.e.: a white skin and blue eyes are caused by a lack of pigment in skin and iris. As is known, men spread out from the equator to the north and the south. This means that white/blue is a degeneration of the black skin and brown eyes. It is adaptation (however, only white skin is, since blue eyes don't give a benefit), but it isn't evolution. It isn't more, it's less! (Pigment, thus gene information.)
This is degeneration. This also points into the direction of a falling line, contrary to a raising.