Origin of life

[Springer]

quote="mithrilhack"

What is evidence of possibility? The formation of the components of proto-bionts violate no physical or chemical rules and to me that seems reason enough to believe it's possible. You keeping wanting specifics, how specific? If it was known in a detailed step-by-step manuscript wouldn't it have been created already in a lab?

The formation of a few building blocks (amino acids) does not prove anything. If I assembled a pile of scrap metal, is that evidence that I could build a computer?

That's the point, you claim it makes no scientific sense but how much do you know about science? How can you claim it makes no scientific sense when you attack scientists for being materialistic when the basis of science is naturalistic and empirical observations!

Evolution is not based of observation... it is based on belief. No one has ever observed macroevolution. No one has shown that it's biologically possible. There have been more generations of fruit flies bred in captivity than the supposed evolution of man. Man cannot produce a different species, regardless of the number of mutations induced, even with selective breeding. What makes you think natural selection can do it? Your belief, not your observations. As far as abiogenesis, no one has ever observed anything that suggests that life can form spontaneously.

This had nothing to do with belief. It's about what is scientific and what isn''t(ID). This board is a forum of science. I have my own personal beliefs and I try to separate them from science when I post. You should too.

You imply that evolutionists have some kind of corner on scientific objectivity, which is patently false. Evolutionists, not creationsists, are the ones that always interject philosophy into the discussion.

[Springer]

Springer, what "unknown law" of evolution is untestable or unrefutable? You cite lack of "proof." The question should be whether it's testable or not, proof comes after that determination.

Matter cannot self organize to form complex purposeful sequences such as DNA. This is a self evident fact of nature. Evolutionists suppose that given enough time, it could happen. They cannot propose any specific precursors upon which natural selection could work. They merely speak in vague generalities, and always dodge the question when asked specifically "What is a protobiont", or "what is the minimal length of self-replicating DNA?". They simply say it happened and some day future discoveries will shed more light on the question. In short, they don't have a theory. You cannot refute a theory that doesn't exist.

[mith]

The formation of a few building blocks (amino acids) does not prove anything. If I assembled a pile of scrap metal, is that evidence that I could build a computer?

If you had all the parts to a computer doesn't it seem possible to build one? Of course even this analogy ignores many important biological factors.

Evolution is not based of observation... it is based on belief. No one has ever observed macroevolution. No one has shown that it's biologically possible. There have been more generations of fruit flies bred in captivity than the supposed evolution of man. Man cannot produce a different species, regardless of the number of mutations induced, even with selective breeding. What makes you think natural selection can do it? Your belief, not your observations. As far as abiogenesis, no one has ever observed anything that suggests that life can form spontaneously.

There's a difference between observable(able to be observed) and observed(seen). Science only needs to be observable not observed(would be nice but not necessary). Why do you think scientists had to postulate the existence of quarks or black holes? Plus what do you think speciation is if not evolution?? Here's a list if you claim none exists.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

You imply that evolutionists have some kind of corner on scientific objectivity, which is patently false. Evolutionists, not creationsists, are the ones that always interject philosophy into the discussion.

You already admitted creationism isn't science. Done deal.

[Linn]

Springer, what "unknown law" of evolution is untestable or unrefutable? You cite lack of "proof." The question should be whether it's testable or not, proof comes after that determination.

Matter cannot self organize to form complex purposeful sequences such as DNA. This is a self evident fact of nature. Evolutionists suppose that given enough time, it could happen. They cannot propose any specific precursors upon which natural selection could work. They merely speak in vague generalities, and always dodge the question when asked specifically "What is a protobiont", or "what is the minimal length of self-replicating DNA?". They simply say it happened and some day future discoveries will shed more light on the question. In short, they don't have a theory. You cannot refute a theory that doesn't exist.

Springer they are not open to true debate
they have their fingers in their ears.
They are closed minded.
They always believe what they are told.
I have been following the posts and see no religious fanaticism here only science on your part. But they are so opposed to think of other explanations for the phenomena.
Linn

[b_d_41501]

Believe what we are told?????!!!!! I'm pretty sure that you were "told" religion. There are other ways to explain things other than just saying "God did it". I'm a firm believer in a divine God, but there has to be a method to the madness!!!

[Linn]

I am sorry
I am a different religion from my parents. because I could see the discrepancies and nonsense of it.
So I dont do what I am told. I guess I am one of those who has to question everything.
But I am intelligent to know when something is fact or not. And in this case since neither sides have definate proof one has to pick a side.
I have examined both and find that given the evidence that we do have, creation makes more sense. That does not mean I am wrong. To be said my opinion as well as many others is junk science, is very insulting.

I have deduction type thinking.

I am not saying all of you are sheeples but many are.
However, I got a refreshing burst of air from a sphmore student today. She is being taught evolution right now as well as the meaning of theory and hyposthesis.
She said "after all this time of searching they(evolutionists) should have foud some evidence by now". I would say she is a thinker. And she needs to think like that she is going to law school. lol
I am sorry I dont mean to insult any one here, I didnt come on this thread to do that. But then I didnt start that did I?
Sincerely,
Linn

[Springer]

quote="mithrilhackzz"

There's a difference between observable(able to be observed) and observed(seen). Science only needs to be observable not observed(would be nice but not necessary). Why do you think scientists had to postulate the existence of quarks or black holes? Plus what do you think speciation is if not evolution??

While the creator is not observed by science, the consequences of intelligent design are. Yes, physicists deduce the presence of electron orbits based on observation, and I deduce that intelligent design exists based on observation.

Here's a list if you claim none exists.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Those are all examples of microevolution. No one has ever disputed that species change. You are evading the question. Macroevolution has never been observed. Even the most orthodox Darwinists agree.

You already admitted creationism isn't science. Done deal.

No, I said creationism is not falsifiable. Evolution is also non-falsifiable. If it is, tell me what evidence I have to come up with to falsify it.

[alextemplet]

Springer, the difference between micro and macro is, as I understand it, a difference created by creationists in order to validate their faltering cause. Micro or macro, it's still evolution. It's easy to defend yourself by simply calling any observed example of evolution micro, and then saying show me macro. But this is illogical and pointless. I suppose I could math does not exist when someone shows me 2+2=4, and then saying, "Show me calculus."

I understand that you have had spiritual experiences, and use that as evidence of God's existence. That is logical. However, I cannot understand why you acknowledge God's existence, but think that he had nothing to do with the creation and diversity of life. You apparently think that natural selection did everything. That is perplexing, when you consider the fact that there are so many things that cannot be explained in nature in terms of gradualism. I invite you to just consider the feather, as I mentioned before. There is no credible explanation as to how such a specialized structure could have evolved from a scale through natural selection. Why don't you think it was design? You believe in God. Why are you denying His hand in nature?

I'm glad you understand, to an extent, why I believe in God. But please stop trying to tell me what my faith is. Why do I believe in God when I think He had nothing to do with creation and life? Did I ever say that? No. I believe God created the universe and life using natural processes. For example, I have already explained that abiogenesis is possible, but improbable. And you're right about the extremely precise conditions required for a planet to support life. In my mind, all of that was God. He set it up so as to be possible, and then made it happen through natural means. To me, that takes the improbability issue completely out of the picture. To me, life sprang from nonlife, because God was helping it. The process is still a natural one, albeit with a little divine help. The same, I believe, is true for the rest of the evolutionary story. Perhaps God sent the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs and made man possible? My invocation of God may not be useful scientifically, but it's what I believe. My point is that I do see evidence of God's hand in nature. I don't mind you trying to understand my personal faith better, but I hope you'll forgive me if I get a bit irritated with what, to me, sounds like someone else trying to explain to me what I believe.

If it matters, and I suppose it doesn't, I've spent the past several years trying to develop my personal faith into something that I could except. I always had a scientific mind and had serious trouble excepting simple blind faith that some of my friends told me was necessary. Just because others are happy without proof, or at least evidence, doesn't mean I'm the same way. So I invested great energy into trying to find a way to recognize something very out of this world, God, with what I could see around me. And it went much further than simple evolution vs. creationism; I also pondered many much deeper issues, such as why good people have to suffer and the like. I don't pretend to have all the answers; in many ways my faith is still developing today. But overall I'm very happy with where I am in my spiritual life, and I hope what I've typed in this and other posts can at least help you understand where I'm coming from.

I don't suppose that last paragraph was completely necessary; I just wanted to explain my faith a little more since Springer's not the first one to ask me why I believe the way I do.

[mith]

While the creator is not observed by science, the consequences of intelligent design are. Yes, physicists deduce the presence of electron orbits based on observation, and I deduce that intelligent design exists
based on observation.

Saying intelligent design is no better than saying UFO's designed us, doesn't sound very scientific...or am I missing something?

Or for the sake of argument, lets assume that God did create us. How?

quote:
On November 11, 2002, Larry Arnhart reported on a lecture by Behe at Hillsdale:

At Hillsdale, after his public lecture, I challenged Behe in a small-group discussion to give us a positive statement of exactly how the "Intelligent Designer" creates bacterial flagella. As usual, he was evasive. But I didn't let him get away. And finally, he answered: "In a puff of smoke!" A physicist in our group asked, "Do you mean that the Intelligent Designer suspends the laws of physics through working a miracle?" And Behe answered: "Yes.".

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Puff_of_Smoke
Science isn't all about powers of prediction(although being able to predict is essential), it's also the power to naturalistically and empirically explain. If you disagree, tough beans. It's what science is, I didn't make it up.

Those are all examples of microevolution. No one has ever disputed that species change. You are evading the question. Macroevolution has never been observed. Even the most orthodox Darwinists agree.

Which darwinist said tha?Macroevolution is the creation of a new specie is it not? And a new specie will not be able to breed with the old specie to create viable offspring right?

quoted from same link:
"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."

Sounds like speciation and macroevolution to me.

No, I said creationism is not falsifiable. Evolution is also non-falsifiable. If it is, tell me what evidence I have to come up with to falsify it.

Not falsifiable therefore not science according to Popper's definition. There's debate on whether falsifiabilty is necessary but as you,Springer, have often told me to judge for myself, I'll say that I do believe it is a good qualifier.

Here's a couple already posted before on how evolution is can be falsified.
# Several methods of determining phylogenies (ie: Cladistics) are capable of contradicting the existence of evolutionary trees. They could provide counter-evidence for common descent, but they don't.
# The genetic code could conceivably be different between different groups of organisms. If this happened frequently, it would cause severe problems for the theory of common descent. Instead, only minor differences in the genetic code are found, and they tend to occur in ways that strengthen the evolutionary tree.
# If there were no significant differences in the fauna at different times, or different geographical locations which have been separated for a very long time from other locations (e.g. Australia), this would be a clear falsification.
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Evoluti ... _falsified


To all who aren't sure what science is
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Philosophy_of_Science

[Linn]

I am confused
Did they mean to say species? I mean in the article?

[Springer]

quote="mithrilhack"

Saying intelligent design is no better than saying UFO's designed us, doesn't sound very scientific...or am I missing something?

There is no evidence that a UFO designed anything, so what's your point?

Or for the sake of argument, lets assume that God did create us. How?

You cannot explain "how" abiogenesis occurred. You can guess and pretend to sound "scientific", but you sound far more foolish than admitting "I don't know".

Science isn't all about powers of prediction(although being able to predict is essential), it's also the power to naturalistically and empirically explain. If you disagree, tough beans. It's what science is, I didn't make it up.

How do you know God doesn't work through natural law? What you're saying is that "science" excludes God. It cannot prove that He doesn't exists, it just assumes He doesn't.

Macroevolution is the creation of a new specie is it not? And a new specie will not be able to breed with the old specie to create viable offspring right?

quoted from same link:
"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."

Sounds like speciation and macroevolution to me.

Speciation does not equal macroevolution. You assume that because two species of gulls can become reproductively isolated, that you've proven goo-to-you evolution. All of these are examples of microevolution, which can be accomplished through selective breeding.

Not falsifiable therefore not science according to Popper's definition. There's debate on whether falsifiabilty is necessary but as you,Springer, have often told me to judge for myself, I'll say that I do believe it is a good qualifier.

Whatever criteria you use for creationism you must also accept for evolution.

Here's a couple already posted before on how evolution is can be falsified.
# Several methods of determining phylogenies (ie: Cladistics) are capable of contradicting the existence of evolutionary trees. They could provide counter-evidence for common descent, but they don't.
# The genetic code could conceivably be different between different groups of organisms. If this happened frequently, it would cause severe problems for the theory of common descent. Instead, only minor differences in the genetic code are found, and they tend to occur in ways that strengthen the evolutionary tree.
# If there were no significant differences in the fauna at different times, or different geographical locations which have been separated for a very long time from other locations (e.g. Australia), this would be a clear falsification.

All three of your examples have been refuted, and yet evolutionists have rationalized all of this evidence with ad hoc explanations to the effect that some day evolution will provide the answers. For example, in your third challenge,... there are many examples of widely separated species that have not "evolved" over time. Dragonflies have not changed in hundreds of millions of years, yet evolutionists have no problem with this.

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Evoluti ... _falsified

To all who aren't sure what science is
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Philosophy_of_Science

Evolution is not even close to being "science". It is a religion, a belief system.

[mith]

There is no evidence that a UFO designed anything, so what's your point?

You said a designer, you can't be sure if it's god and you can't be sure that it isn't a ufo. Moot point.

You cannot explain "how" abiogenesis occurred. You can guess and pretend to sound "scientific", but you sound far more foolish than admitting "I don't know".

How is it "sounding scientific" and not scientific? We can't explain it specifically as stated numerous times before, but from what we've seen so far it can be a naturalistic explanation(because it breaks no laws of physics, chem etc...) that doesn't require any puffs of smoke or suspension of natural laws.

How do you know God doesn't work through natural law? What you're saying is that "science" excludes God. It cannot prove that He doesn't exists, it just assumes He doesn't.

I don't know how god works, but ID assumes for the sake of argument that evolution cannot have come about through natural laws so it must be created. If it is created then it could not have come about through natural laws lol hence not scientific as illustrated in the little conversation with behe.

And yes, science will have to exclude god, no mention of right or wrong, simply excluded. The above exercise was hypothetical but it works well to show how ID cannot be scientific. Because then it would be religion.

Macroevolution is the creation of a new specie is it not? And a new specie will not be able to breed with the old specie to create viable offspring right?

quoted from same link:
"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."

Sounds like speciation and macroevolution to me.

Speciation does not equal macroevolution. You assume that because two species of gulls can become reproductively isolated, that you've proven goo-to-you evolution. All of these are examples of microevolution, which can be accomplished through selective breeding.

Most sources I've looked at defines it as speciation. Are you sure you're using the right definition.

Whatever criteria you use for creationism you must also accept for evolution.

If we're judging it as scientific or not, of course.

Here's a couple already posted before on how evolution is can be falsified.
# Several methods of determining phylogenies (ie: Cladistics) are capable of contradicting the existence of evolutionary trees. They could provide counter-evidence for common descent, but they don't.
# The genetic code could conceivably be different between different groups of organisms. If this happened frequently, it would cause severe problems for the theory of common descent. Instead, only minor differences in the genetic code are found, and they tend to occur in ways that strengthen the evolutionary tree.
# If there were no significant differences in the fauna at different times, or different geographical locations which have been separated for a very long time from other locations (e.g. Australia), this would be a clear falsification.

All three of your examples have been refuted, and yet evolutionists have rationalized all of this evidence with ad hoc explanations to the effect that some day evolution will provide the answers. For example, in your third challenge,... there are many examples of widely separated species that have not "evolved" over time. Dragonflies have not changed in hundreds of millions of years, yet evolutionists have no problem with this.

You're right, there is a chance that everything is ad hoc just as in the ptolemy model of the universe. But we won't really know until a new paradigm comes and changes everything(copernicus). But as of yet, there isn't a scientific alternative. So, changes are refinements, not complications. And of course, uncertainty is something we all have to deal with in science(it's a limitation of humans but we have to do the best we can with what we have).

And the argument wouldn't be whether dragonflies have changed but whether dragonflies on the different continents have changed especially if they lived in different settings(since that's what the 3rd one was saying). Because there's tonnes of species that haven't changed much tuatara, turtles, coelecanths...etc...

So no, I don't think any have been falsified yet....

Evolution is not even close to being "science". It is a religion, a belief system.

Ok, you got me, I'm absolutely certain of evolution and it is my dogma. I've only been pandering it as science. In fact, it's all just one big conspiracy. All the scientists who support evolution are actually cultists who have a fun bash every tuesday in an underground mosh pit.

On a more serious note, it is a belief. But yes it is scientific, a majority of scientists find nothing unscientific about it(cited in wikipedia article on ID). And yes, there is a difference between belief in religion/dogma which has no uncertainty and belief in science; there's always some uncertainty.

As said before, if you question the difference between science and non-science, you'll have to read the posted link since it's more philosophy than we care to discuss on this forum.