Evolution?

[wacki]

wacki, you certainly were not creating life.  You were working with components of pre-existing life forms.

What I'm saying is that if you consider single elemental atoms "dead" and viruses "alive" then there is no doubt that we can 'create life'.  Where you decide to draw the line between death and life is up to you.

And notice that your laboratory evolution happened according to your intelligent design, not by accident.

I will politely suggest you read up on how evolution and more specifically natural selection works.

And if it's so easy to create new species, why don't you go ahead and evolve some mammals or reptiles, or birds for us?  Or a fish, perhaps?  How far can you go with this "evolution"?

As for the mammals, reptiles, and birds well they don't reproduce fast enough for evolution to occur in a reasonable time frame.  So we use retro-viral therapy to reprogram their DNA.  And we are currently doing some pretty amazing things in that field.  Retroviral therapy is intelligent design because it doesn't rely upon 'natural' selection and random mutations..

[Eleven Mike]

Sir or Madam,

The point is that your laboratory evolution only takes place under controlled circumstances, when guided by a higher intelligence, yours.  Does this procedure really simulate the conditions under which similar organisms might have evolved?  If so, do you not find it ironic that the procedure still seems to require an intelligent agent to guide it?  If I came into your lab, as one not trained in these procedures, or in life sciences, would I even come close to achieving this "evolution"?  Would I not need to know exactly what to do?  How then do you propose that these elements could achieve this with no guidance at all, save natural selection?

[woodcdi]

Undeniable Truth Undeniable Truth Undeniable Truth Undeniable Truth Undeniable Truth Undeniable Truth Undeniable Truth Undeniable Truth Undeniable Truth Undeniable Truth Undeniable Truth Undeniable Truth
Allow me to throw this into the mix:

No matter what evolves, mutates, or crawls out of the slime does so in accordance with the laws of physics. These laws have not changed since the Dawn of Time, or the Creation, or the Big Bang, or the Just Because It's Nature. Everything that comes along has to be doable in the first place, whether the forces or happenstance for what ever could evolve is set in motion and you have your creation, or not set in motion and you don't have your creation. The fact remains that those laws of physics are there, unchanging, and have been there all along.

That makes me think the "Intelligent Design" theory holds more water than any other theory. Even evolution cannot happen without adhering to the laws of physics, wouldn't you agree? Whoever or whatever "wrote" those laws is certainly a matter of conjecture, but the fact that they existed even before they have all been used, or every conceivable interaction of them has been explored, those laws of physics have always been there.

Woody

    "There is nothing to fear in this country from free people. But, when freedom is usurped, there is something to fear for people will revolt to remain free. To all usurpers, do the math.  But don't wonder the outcome when you miscalculate."   B.E.Wood

[Cosmoline]

Why has the 97% figure been popularised then? One can only guess that it served the purpose of evolutionary indoctrination of the scientifically illiterate.

If it's completely unreliable, why does this technique show a decreasing level of similarity as we move further away from the hominid/pan lines?  In other words, if it was unreliable as you allege, it would be showing random levels of similarity.

[Cosmoline]

Kentucky.  Lincoln was a racist.  Einstein yelled at his wife.  So what?  You are attempting to undermine a theory by attacking individuals who propounded it.  That's a fallacy.  It's as weak as people attacking the Second because the founders owned slaves.  Do you have any actual evidence to show we are genetically unique--a sui generis creation apart from all other life?

These laws have not changed since the Dawn of Time

Don't bet on it.  Although theoretical physicists have been trying hard to establish the rules of the universe as some kind of quasi-religious Truth, reality is turning out to be MUCH weirder.  Really weird.  To me, the greatest proof of a higher power so far is the black hole--a place where all bets are off. 

[woodcdi]

These laws have not changed since the Dawn of Time

Don't bet on it.  Although theoretical physicists have been trying hard to establish the rules of the universe as some kind of quasi-religious Truth, reality is turning out to be MUCH weirder.  Really weird.  To me, the greatest proof of a higher power so far is the black hole--a place where all bets are off. 

Ahem: These theoretical physicists aren't "establishing" anything. They are simply trying to figure out or codify what has long ago been established.

As for the Black Hole, it quite possibly follows a whole new set of rules, but rules that apply where the rules up to the event horizon end. Even so, the event horizon can be explained. It is the point where gravity is strong enough to prevent the escape of light. This is some proof that gravity exists within a black hole, and gravity is one of the elements of physics existing outside of the event horizon, so we know not everything changes within the event horizon or black hole. Still, what ever the rules are within the event horizon or black hole, they exist. Those rules had to exist prior to the formation of the black hole, because the matter and energy had to react with each other in time with some set of rules to form the black hole to begin with. And, undeniably, because there is more than one black hole, we have matter, energy, and time following the same rules in numerous different places.

For all we know, a black hole is where energy is converted back into matter. That would be an interesting theory to examine, wouldn't it!

I'd like to know a little more about gravity and its source of power. Seems to me that something must be consumed to generate that force! Maybe it's that little gremlin that defies explanation in the quest to reconcile quantum physics with relativity for the unified theory.(I really want to know so I can defy gravity and star hop as easily as heading out to the gun range.)

Woody

[Jamisjockey]

Big Bang Theory:

First there was nothing.  Then it exploded.

I'm an evolutionist and I don't buy the big bang theory.  Instead, I lean towards the theory that some things are just inexplicable.  Some people subscirbe to the belief in a god.  Where did that being come from?  No less insane than the theory that there has always been some kind of universe on some level we just can't understand yet as humans.

[The Viking]

Big Bang Theory:

First there was nothing.  Then it exploded.

I'm an evolutionist and I don't buy the big bang theory.  Instead, I lean towards the theory that some things are just inexplicable.  Some people subscirbe to the belief in a god.  Where did that being come from?  No less insane than the theory that there has always been some kind of universe on some level we just can't understand yet as humans.

For all we know, it WAS created by the wizards at Unseen University. Hey, it COULD happen
I feel that this hypothesis, while not widely known, is the funniest. So I'll go with it.

[Matthew Carberry]

I really want to know so I can defy gravity and star hop as easily as heading out to the gun range.

I really want to know so I can defy gravity and star hop TO the gun range.  Commute to Gunsite from home.

I'm with Jamis in theory and practice.  Though I currently ascribe that unknowingness to the Divine, as it works as well as any other option and consistently fits my larger worldview, which nothing in evolutionary science contradicts.

[Leatherneck]

Kentucky: welcome to the forum, but please try to be more concise. Not fair to monopolize a discussion.

Woody: That scrolling banner thing is possibly the most irritating distraction I've encountered today.

TC

[Perd Hapley]

It seems to me that the bulk of the arguments against evolution can't possibly cope with DNA.  We are quite literally made by genetic material that's 99% identical to our cousins the chimps.  It's a little less close to gorillas and further still from other apes.  If humans were really sui generis creations, apart from all other life forms, we would have a completely different makeup and show no relationship to other living things.  But that's not the way it is.

That does not follow. 

I'd also like an explanation.  It sounds like the old, and unconvincing, argument that evolution must be true because of homologies among vertebrates.  It's also funny, because I just heard a Christian talk show host claiming DNA is fatal to the evolutionary point of view.  But that's a microcosm of the whole debate.  Both sides share the same body of evidence, and claim it proves their side. 

[mountainclmbr]

Whatever happened is not going to be changed by our debate over it. I don't think there is any way to know for sure. I just don't know how entropy would allow life to form on it's own.

[woodcdi]

Woody: That scrolling banner thing is possibly the most irritating distraction I've encountered today.

TC

I had to check it out and see how it looked. Can't say I disagree with your opinion of it. To be distracting and irritating at the same time is a new low for me....

Woody

[Moondoggie]

What a civilized discussion!

I've given this topic a lot of thought/contemplation and layman's research for most of my adult life.

The available info and logic will strike almost everyone differently depending upon the orientation that you view it from.

I won't bore anyone with my own set of beliefs, but I strongly agree with many of the points already posted.

I think it's obvious that there are universal principles of "Good" and "Right" that almost everybody recognizes.  These had to come from somewhere. 

The bottom line is that none of us knows with any certainty.  I believe that almost anything we can imagine is possible.  I'm hopeful that there is a "next life" on some plane of existence that might yeild a greater knowledge of the nature of creation/eternity/"the universe".

We'll see.  Or not.

Pleasant journey!

[Glock Glockler]

Evolution is a theory regarding the changing of organisms that already exist, it says absolutely nothing regarding the how life began or even about the origins of the cosmos.  This might be helpful in a discussion about evolution, especially when the thread has so obviously become sidetracked.

The legitimacy of evolutionary theory or creationism have absolutely nothing to do with the social impact of those theories.  I don't care if Hitler thought loved evolution or loved Jesus, the validity of the theory is not enhanced or lessened by that association. 

[Ron]

Evolution is a theory regarding the changing of organisms that already exist

Would it be correct to assume that the overriding majority of proponents of evolution also believe in some type of abiogenesis?

[Glock Glockler]

My experience says yes, and if you want to discuss abiogenesis then have at it, but getting onto that topic when evolution is the topic at hand will only confuse things even more.  If evolution has absolutely no validity then it would be moot to even bring up abiogenesis. 

[K Frame]

The way I see it, biological abiogenesis (a term that really applies to the medieval/Renaissance theory of spontaneous generation, but which is now being used by some to describe the combination of amino acids and other organic building blocks that led to the rise of life) and biblical creation are tantamount to the same thing.

In both cases something comes from nothing.

Wrapping a biblical explanation around it makes no difference.

[Racehorse]

I'll throw in my two bits. In my opinion, something never comes from nothing. I think the probabilities of abiogenesis make it a very unlikely explanation for the origin of life. I believe in evolution of existing life. The science is pretty solid. But I also believe that God provided the starting point for that evolution to take place. I think matter and energy and the universe have always existed and always will. Matter/energy can be rearranged, but I don't think they can be created or destroyed.

[Perd Hapley]

The way I see it, biological abiogenesis (a term that really applies to the medieval/Renaissance theory of spontaneous generation, but which is now being used by some to describe the combination of amino acids and other organic building blocks that led to the rise of life) and biblical creation are tantamount to the same thing.

In both cases something comes from nothing.

Wrapping a biblical explanation around it makes no difference.

In neither case does something comes from nothing.  What's happening is pre-existing atoms and molecules forming into "amino acids and other organic building blocks," which further organize into complete living organisms.  The Biblical explanation asserts that an omniscient, omnipotent God did this, and seems to indicate that He was using pre-existing materials.  The non-theistic view asserts that these things happened according to blind natural processes, without intelligent guidance or interference.

Creation ex nihilo refers to the earlier creation of the "heavens and the earth," not of life.

[K Frame]

"In neither case does something come from nothing."

In BOTH cases life comes from lifelessness -- in essence, something from nothing.

"The Biblical explanation asserts that an omniscient, omnipotent God did this, and seems to indicate that He was using pre-existing materials."

So, could the pre-existing materials that God used be... say... amino acids that were a left over from his "I spoke, and it happened" scenario of creating the earth?

So...

Random chance association of pre-existing materials results in life springing up, or God uses "pre-existing materials" that result in life springing up.

Sounds a lot like my initial comment in this thread...

I reject the contention that somehow religion and science are at the opposite ends of a psychological/theological spectrum.

[K Frame]

"In other words, the theory of these simple enzymes forming on their own is 800 times more unlikely than the scientific standard of impossibility!"

And that's evidence FOR the hand of a supreme being creating the cosmos, life, and everything else in just 7 days.... how?

[Perd Hapley]

I reject the contention that somehow religion and science are at the opposite ends of a psychological/theological spectrum.

Great.  So do I.  I just happen to agree with the young-earthers, at least until I can take a closer look at the science myself. 

Still, non-living matter is something, rather than nothing. 

[tyme]

The oft-repeated notion that life represents an impossible formation of order out of chaos is fueled by a gross misunderstanding of thermodynamics.  It is perfectly allowable for open systems to become less chaotic, and Earth is an open system.  In fact, the 2nd law (which says roughly that closed systems cannot become more ordered... that is, global entropy cannot decrease) is not even a law, but is based on the statistical improbability of spontaneous order occurring at macroscopic scales.  That is the same sort of statistical improbability that says you won't win a lottery, on a different scale.

The Big Bang theory doesn't work for me, because I have to wonder where those particles came from.

If our concept of time is sufficiently broken due to humans' perceptions, it could be that time didn't really apply back then.  So there would be no need for the big bang to proceed from anything that came before, because there would be no "before."  The conceptual problem we have with how the universe was formed could be due simply to our feeble brains and their limited grasp of reality.

[Iapetus]

On the other hand, as a geologist (or rather, someone with a degree in geology), I am convinced that all the evidence points to the Earth being around 4.5bn years old, and the diversity of life to be the result of evolution by natural selection.  (I could go into some of that evidence if you want, but not in this post).

Lets do go over these evidences, as I am not aware of any dating methods that have not proven to be unreliable.

My appologies, I've been a bit busy and forgot to check this thread  (and APS has stopped emailing me when my posts get replies).

The main methods used are various forms of radio-isotope dating, which are based on pretty consistent physical laws.  Less direct indicators of age (e.g. continental drift rates) also agree with these.  Its been a while since I studied the isses in detail, but everything seemed reliable. 

Of course, that's essentially just me saying "trust me", rather than a convincing argument, so I can't expect this post to prove anything or convince anyone.  But hopefully over the next few days I'll be able to dig something up in my old textbooks or on the internet that will provide a more solid argument.

In the mean time, can I ask which dating methods you were refering to as unreliable, and what flaws supposedly exist in them?