Evolution vs. Creation

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

04-25-2007, 04:25 PM
cuppajoe_9

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red

Michael Denton is Senior Research Fellow in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Otago in New Zealand.

I'm sure he'd be devastated by your deft dismissal of his ability.

Then I can only conclude that the quotation was taken out of context or is inaccurate, because organic compounds can and do form without oxygen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red

I think his statement has nothing to do with what organic compounds contain but with how the presence or abscence of oxygen negatively effects the development of said DNA/RNA.

The hypothesis in no way depends on the first self-replicating molecules being exactly like modern DNA and RNA, they need only share certain properties of them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red

And what exactly, is the new hypothesis as to the first "life form" and how does this revision change what I've presented?

I believe I've already said. Rougly: certain self-replicating organic molecules are formed in early earth and, over the course of a few billion years, evolve into cellular life. Your statistics on the probability of cellular life emerging fully-formed are indeed relevant, but do not in any way damage current thinking about abiogenesis, as nobody says that this is what happened.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red

(good ol' stable science and its certainty in action again I see)

Science has never emphasized stability or certainty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red

How can you say this has nothing to do with evolution (or are you still hair-splitting about abiogenesis and such? Sorry - when I refer to evolution, I am referring primarily to abiogenesis and all that follows it)?

If it is proven that abiogenesis is impossible, the ramifications for Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection (which is what we are talking about) are as follows: none. The evidence that shows common descent would remain completely intact, the observations of speciation completely unchanged, and the genetic markers that show hereditary realtionships with other species would remain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red

Relevant to me in terms of emphasizing the evenness of the playing field; though you don't really indulge in the "you are ignorant of science" stuff thrown at Christians on this thread, I feel it important to remind the so-called experts here that the entity they argue against (God) is one that they only barely understand - just as I'm told my arguments are "out of date" "irrelevant" "illogical" or whatever, I merely point out that many statements made about the nature and character of God reveal a similar lack of knowledge.

When I attack the God hypothesis, then my knowledge of it becomes relevant. I have not or, at least, not during the course of this particular discussion.
04-25-2007, 04:52 PM
Dante Wodehouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

No. Via wiki:

Not sure what that has to do with anything.

They use oxygen or CO2 to breathe once they have passed the level of bacteria.
04-25-2007, 04:54 PM
cuppajoe_9

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse

They use oxygen or CO2 to breathe once they have passed the level of bacteria.

Ok, first off, 'organic' when refering to molecules, doesn't necessarily mean 'alive'. Organic molecules don't breathe anything.
04-25-2007, 05:04 PM
Dante Wodehouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Ok, first off, 'organic' when refering to molecules, doesn't necessarily mean 'alive'. Organic molecules don't breathe anything.

Yes, but for that organic molecule to surpass the level of bacteria it would have to breathe.
04-25-2007, 05:16 PM
cuppajoe_9

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse

Yes, but for that organic molecule to surpass the level of bacteria it would have to breathe.

Yes. So what?
04-25-2007, 05:27 PM
Dante Wodehouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Yes. So what?

According to known fact, amino acids and RNA can only develop in an oxygen/CO2 free environment, but for it to evolve further it needs oxygen/CO2.
04-25-2007, 05:38 PM
cuppajoe_9

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse

According to known fact, amino acids and RNA can only develop in an oxygen/CO2 free environment, but for it to evolve further it needs oxygen/CO2.

The first self-replicating molecules don't need do be chemically the same as RNA for the hypothesis to hold.
04-25-2007, 05:48 PM
Redzeppelin

Quote:

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Then I can only conclude that the quotation was taken out of context or is inaccurate, because organic compounds can and do form without oxygen.

I would assume that DNA is as far down as one can go in terms of "life." I'm probably wrong, but allow me to blunder on. The hypothesis is not so much about bacterium as the DNA/RNA necessary to create life. The suggestion is that chirality is negatively effected either by the presence of oxygen (oxygen decays life) or its absence (protective ozone is missing from earth's atmosphere and ozone allows life to exist on earth). Since chirality is inherent in the construction/replication of DNA/RNA, I'm not sure how you've dismissed my post unless you're going to suggest that DNA/RNA had nothing to do with the initiation of life on earth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

The hypothesis in no way depends on the first self-replicating molecules being exactly like modern DNA and RNA, they need only share certain properties of them.

The suggestion points to a radically "streamlined" DNA (100,000 pairs) which is far less complex than modern DNA(1 million odd pairs). If it wasn't DNA/RNA then what was it, because from what mainstream media/science says, DNA is the "building blocks of life." Are you telling me there's something else?

Quote:

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

I believe I've already said. Rougly: certain self-replicating organic molecules are formed in early earth and, over the course of a few billion years, evolve into cellular life. Your statistics on the probability of cellular life emerging fully-formed are indeed relevant, but do not in any way damage current thinking about abiogenesis, as nobody says that this is what happened.

Then please give me a simplified version (rather than a 1000-page website) of "what happened" so I sound less ignorant. Thanks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Science has never emphasized stability or certainty.

No - but many of its adherents here have trumpeted its credibility. I'm just noting how that credibility requires constant revision. If the Bible altered its ideas about morality like science does about the nature of reality, the Bible would be dismissed as valid by even Christians.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

If it is proven that abiogenesis is impossible, the ramifications for Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection (which is what we are talking about) are as follows: none. The evidence that shows common descent would remain completely intact, the observations of speciation completely unchanged, and the genetic markers that show hereditary realtionships with other species would remain.

That's fine - but I'm talking about abiogenesis primarily; evidence for the other things you mentioned (in the words of Porfiry in Crime and Punishment) "cuts both ways."

Quote:

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

When I attack the God hypothesis, then my knowledge of it becomes relevant. I have not or, at least, not during the course of this particular discussion.

In my mind it is relevant because evolution/abiogenesis is an attack on God.
04-25-2007, 05:56 PM
cuppajoe_9

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red

If it wasn't DNA/RNA then what was it, because from what mainstream media/science says, DNA is the "building blocks of life." Are you telling me there's something else?

Perhaps (sheer speculation) some other molecule with the properties of self-replication at some point competed with DNA/RNA, lost and became extinct. This doesn't happen anymore, because anything organic that popped up would be unable to compete with modern, compex organisms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red

Then please give me a simplified version (rather than a 1000-page website) of "what happened" so I sound less ignorant. Thanks.

I don't know what happened, I only know that there are several hypotheses, all of them complicated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red

No - but many of its adherents here have trumpeted its credibility. I'm just noting how that credibility requires constant revision.

Easy. As new information becomes available, the theory has to change.
04-25-2007, 05:58 PM
cuppajoe_9

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red

That's fine - but I'm talking about abiogenesis primarily

Fine but that's not what the thread's about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red

In my mind it is relevant because evolution/abiogenesis is an attack on God.

Ok, but it isn't. When I attack God, I'll tell you.
04-25-2007, 06:06 PM
Redzeppelin

Quote:

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Fine but that's not what the thread's about.

I'm not quite sure I buy your decision; abiogenesis is connected to evolution and as such, it is related. There have been many other tangents followed in this discussion less relevant to evolution than abiogenesis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Ok, but it isn't. When I attack God, I'll tell you.

Assuming you know when you're doing it. To be honest, the entire philosophic position of Naturalism is an attack on God. So is the theory of evolution/abiogenesis.
04-25-2007, 06:40 PM
cuppajoe_9

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red

I'm not quite sure I buy your decision; abiogenesis is connected to evolution and as such, it is related. There have been many other tangents followed in this discussion less relevant to evolution than abiogenesis.

Revision: it's not what we're talking about now. You said: acceptance of evolution involves tacit acceptance of long odds, but the only odds you've talked about are related to abiogenesis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red

Assuming you know when you're doing it. To be honest, the entire philosophic position of Naturalism is an attack on God. So is the theory of evolution/abiogenesis.

I don't think I've advocated philosophical naturalism on this particular thread, and the theory of evolution is not in any way an attack on god, which is why many theists accept it.
04-26-2007, 06:34 AM
atiguhya padma

<True, life evolving is beyond all odds. There shouldn't even be one planet in the whole universe that has life. But there is. >

I thought that there was an equation based on the amount of carbon in the Universe, and that this suggested that carbon-based life should be found somewhere.
04-26-2007, 06:52 AM
Jay

General mod note:

Please, don't personalize your posts and respect each other's beliefs and/or opinions even if you don't agree with them.
04-26-2007, 07:58 AM
peaches054

To me it doesn't matter of evolution or creation, i mean believe what you want to believe but it's mostly how and what you did for your little world it's how to make a difference and know that you did something good in your life as one of my fav quote says not quoted directly but while your planning your life it's litterally passing you by, so instead of talking what you believe in why not do something to better another persons' life and share what you every day throw away or abuse

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page