HomeGuideFAQSearchMemberlistForumSupportStore
LD4all.com

Welcome to the archive! Log in
Evolution; Disambiguation
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.     |##| -> |=|     LD4all archive Forum Index »Philosopher's CloudGoto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author Message
Shaper
Lord of Dreams
Dream Deity

Age: 32
Posts: 3980
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Last Visit: 19 Jun 2015
Location: Quebec, Canada
PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2006 5:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lebowsk1 wrote:

Two quick examples:

a) fruit fly experiments since 60's
b) work with microbes

Both have failed to show there is any sense in the macro-evolutionary hypothesis.


Both of these experiments were done in a lab, yes?
Macroevolution is supposed to happen over hundreds of thousands of years, so I'm not really surprised.
It's true that Hox gene mutations can only count for so much. Like you said; a fruit fly will not become anything other than a fruit fly......well, sort of. A more accurate statement would be that an arthropod will probably not ever become an arthropod. The distictions between different phyla happened loooong ago according to biologists, so diversification was probably alot easier back then because of the simplicity of early life.
Think about the groups of animals now, they are all reasonable similar. Take arthropods again; they all have an exoskeleton, they all have sectional bodies, et cetera. There's plenty of room for a change of genetic information there, an ancient crustacian could diverge into other species like horseshoe crabs, modern sea spiders, and land-dwelling spiders, lobsters, etc. Lombs, shape, etc will change, but it will still be an arthropod because that's what emerged very very early.
This happens to be one of the reasons I think macro-evolution is likely. The changes, when looked at over the short term, are not really all that drastic, it's just when they add up over time they can give you a completely different species.

Quote:

You, sir, are a dogmatist.

Josh, I don't really know if you understand much about this debate...


I think you might be taking my posts a little too personally....so if I'm comming off as a jerk, I apologize, but please refrain from calling me a dogmatist. I am merely stating a fact. I don't mean to sound so sure of myself, but it's true that we observe micro-evolution regardless of design, so we know evolution does happen. We can infer that macro-evolution happens based on the other evidence like common ancestry. Behe believes in common ancestry, doesn't he? Well how does he explain it and prove his explanation to be true? (I haven't read his book)

I'm gonna go over this point once more because I feel it's very important no matter which thread we're talking about this in; if ID is truely a viable theory, it will stand on it's own two feet without having to rip apart evolution. Evolution is not a completely concrete theory,(what is so dogmatic about that?), and I'm the first person to admit that, but those mysteries do not make an alternative theory true. What makes the alternative true is finding proof of it's hypothesis, and ID theorists can research this matter separatly from evolution. Your thoughts?


Quote:

But is the evidence for design only in the observation of the act of design or can we infer it from the nature of the designed artefact itself?


It's like Atheist said in the other thread, we can infer design up to a certain point (I believe) based upon simply the artefact itself. The spear example he gave sums it up nicely. I'll continue this in the ID thread if you like.


Quote:

Still in denial about the whole abiogenesis thing eh? I suppose you think the US government explained why Building 7 fell down too.


Could you please keep to the point?


Quote:

No, I don't think the religious beliefs of ID proponents has anything to do with ID theory. And besides, there are atheistic ID theorists.


Fair enough, but I think it has a great deal to do with it, if only for the fact that ID doesn't name a designer....and that's because since we can't really answer that question, people are free to associate any designer they want, like God, or aliens (both of which only leave more unanswerable questions - see ID thread.


Quote:

And before you question this, it is pseudo-science because it means that ANY result can be explained by evolution. If something appears slowly in the fossil record then fine, it evolved. But if it appears quickly then it can be explained by PunkEEK. There is literally nothing that could disprove evolution.


Hang on a tick, macro-evolution is still just a theory, it may very well be wrong, and may be right. That is why scientists keep looking at this matter, because it hasn't been proved yet in the first place.



Quote:

Problem with this one is that all experimental work has shown they are disastrous for organisms and can't effect major structural change anyway.


Actually, most mutations are neutral.
It's true that there are more harmful mutations than good ones, but that doesn't mean good ones don't happen. My favorite example is the duplication error (which does happen).

Quote:

No, we know that there are things called gene pools and within those pools variations arise of already existing content.


Didn't we just finnish going over examples of new genetic information? eh

Quote:

Outrageous claim.

Josh, you are flaunting the laws of logic here. It's scary.


I'm not doing anything of the sort. I am simply making the association between a force we already know happens (micro-evolution) rather than a force we don't know exists (an intelligence independent of this world).




Quote:

????

Are you saying ID theorists don't dispute Darwinian macro-evolution?


No, I'm saying many don't dispute micro-evolution. Not just ID theorists, but many other theological schools accept it as well.


Quote:

I think to understand why Darwinism is so huge in science requires that we understand science as a collection of individual scientists, individual people. I think it is a psychological phenomenon.


I'll discuss this in the ID thread, I ahve some ideas that would just take this thread way to off-topic

Quote:

It is, and already has at least one peer-review journal.

Biologists are having to learn the principles of engineering. ID is happening already.


Right, so what's the problem then? If ID can stand on it's own two feet then it will stand regardless of how many scientists already sunbscribe to evolution, do we agree?


Quote:

It may be 'structured' and have mechanisms, but it does not have IC and CSI without intelligent intervention.


Hang on, IC doesn not have do be designed per se, we see some IC in life and there is no conlusive evidence that it is in fact designed.
CSI has already been covered by Dreaming Parent and yourself, but I'm going to go read up on it a little more.


Quote:

This is the whole thing about the Type Two Secretory System. The problem for you is that there is a huge amount of debate about whether the TTSS evolved into the flagellum or whether the flagellum evolved into the TTSS. It isnt a clear progression at all, and also while you lack a mechanism it is all fairy-story stuff anyway.

Check out Scott Minnich (heavyweight flagellum knowledge) and Meyer tackle this issue here: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2181

Behe has also strongly refuted the claim, and I'll find a link later.


I'll give those a read and then get back to you

Quote:

Well look, give me a pen and paper and I'll design you a coding language in half an hour. It'll be a pretty basic one but I'll show you.


That explains how to create a written language, but it is just an association with something that isn't directly testable. I agree that we'd have to make a logical inference but you have to look at both sides of the argument.



Quote:

You really have the balls to say that in the complete and utter absence of a scientific explanation for life? Man oh man, good thing there's such a thing as repentence...


But that's what you don't seem to get about my argument - there is not a complete absence of evidence at all. There is plenty to suggest that it's possible, chemically, statistically, environmentally, and I think we'll probably have a definitive answer to the abiogenesis puzzle within the next 50 years.
Why is this so surprising to you?

Quote:

I meant around today. Funny that there arent any.


Ah, living transition species is what you'd like?
I could probably give you a few, like mudskippers (fish that come out of water and dwell on land) or mudpuppies( a salamander like creature with gills and lungs) perhaps, but without being able to predict where evolution would be going, how could I actually say for sure it was a transitional species?


Quote:

What the hell kind of cheap-shot is that?!?!?! whatsthat


Did you just happen to miss the part where I said "I couldn't find any details on why so I can't really make a comment"...?
Many skinks haven't lost their legs, and the ones that do, I couldn't find any information on at that particular moment. No need to take it as a 'cheap shot'.

___________
Back to top
zero_saiyaman
Lucid Initiate
Lucid Initiate

Age: 34
Posts: 82
Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Last Visit: 08 Jun 2006
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2006 5:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ok, I had an amazing post laid out, but it got destroyed by a popup using this window for its link... Rar!

Anyways, there are many thing in these threads which I stumbled on quite by accident that make me whince at the biological and scientific misconceptions they display. Being a quarter away from graduating with my B.S. Biology: Ecology, Evolution, Orgismal degree, I have alot to say on all the stuff flying around here. But, since I did just lose my wonderful post... I don't have the heart to put any effort into this.

Point 1: Science cannot prove anything, it can only disprove. That's it folks. (See Type 1 and Type 2 errors in statistics)

Point 2: Science is a method of inquiry about the natural world: natural phenomenon, the laws that govern them, and how to use those laws to our benefit. Anything outside of the natural laws, or this earthly terrarium that's been set up for us, cannot Ever be evaluated by science as it is beyond science. Science is mute on anything dealing with the supernatural in any way, shape, or form.

Point 3: Science is nothing mythical, magical, or authoritative. Sorry, it's a type of philosophy technically, a scheam of how to think.

Point 4: Science is constantly subject to change. Haekel's "ontology recupitulates phylogeny" and all subsequent theories there on where completely destroyed and disproved; so scientists had to leap forward after the new lines of evidence. Science is wonderful in that scientists, most of them, follow the evidence wherever it points. Since human knowledge can never be complete or absolute in any way, all scientific theories are based only on the evidence at that time, nothing more nor less. And it will change, just like Lamark's evolution through organic progression, or the thoughts that Giardia and other protists of that clade where ancestral to current eukaryots in that they lacked a mytochondria and came before the moment of endosymbiosis; however, that's been completely disproved, and indeed there are modified mitochondria in those cells, made for anaerobic respiration instead of aerobic like our mitochondria are.

Point 5: Amino acids cannot self assemble into proteins. Moreover, all amino acid abiogenesis synthesis reactions only account for the smallest percentage of what was likely in the young earth's atmosphere. Needless to say, all those experiments never added in all the other chemicals, minerals, and elements that are in any sort of environment and which will always react on several orders of magnitude faster with amino acides and ammonia/formic acid than amino acids will to make polypeptides (which is impossible unless forced by specific parameters which can never occur in nature) or ammonia and formic acid will to make an amino acid.
Also interesting to note is the issue of volume. Even if organic molecules could be produced and self assemble into replicating units (which they cannot), the issue of even finding a corresponding unit to form a bond with will arise, as the volume of any body of water is immense in proportion to the small molecules; small molecules which shall run into other inorganics which populate that body of water and which will react at a faster rate and reduce organic molecules into less complex and functionless, inorganic, forms.

Point 6: Depurination of DNA/RNA/PNA occurs at a rate of about 10-50 losses of adenines and guanines per minute by the very intristic nature of DNA itself. Moreover, in the presence of water, this rate goes up by another 10-50. Consequently, there are 10-50 breaks in the backbone of DNA at the same rate, as the spontaneous cleavage of DNA happens almost immediately after the loss of a purine. In air alone, water is 10 fold a more powerful mutagen than the second place contender (which is nitrogen based compounds), UV radiation takes 6th place. If water is used in the PCR cycle, you will get no DNA/RNA back at all, it shall all be destroyed rapidly. Even further, people who have High Fructose Intollerance disorder experience a major problem with depurination in their still living cells if they injest any fructose as fructose blocks their metabolic glucose pathway and lowers the energy level of the cell; even without energy to protect DNA being at zero, if it is at a lower level depurination and the subsequent even life threatening damage that comes with it will occur. 10,000 such spontaneous, without water but just intristic, depurinations occur in each cell per day under physiological conditions despite which protect DNA from depurination ( http://www.dojindo.com/newsletter/review_vol2.html ), and oxidative conditions exponentially increase the intristic rate. DNA/RNA/PNA cannot exist in nature without repair mechanicms, which take alot of energy and ATP and proteins, to stop depurinations and repair broken diesterphosphate bonds. Heat of any sort, and acidic conditions also greatly increase depurination and backbone breaking rates.

Point 7: RNA cannot self catalyze the formation of a diesterphosphate bond (which are the bonds that make up the backbone). Yes, some RNA can self polymerize free floating nucleotides onto its complimentary sites, but it cannot form the backbone bond, nor can RNA do that to any other RNAs. Only proteins, with the use of ATP can catalyze a diesterphosphate bond formation. Moreover, ribose and deoxyribose sugars cannot be synthesized in nature by any natural process; other sugars, but not any of the ribose type.

Point 8: To summerize points 5-7, other chemicals will always outdo organic chemicals in rate reactions. We have enzymes in our bodies because of this. Almost no reation in our cells is spontaneous, because all spontaneous reactions will (also following the second law of thermodynamics by the way) destroy organic molecules such as proteins and DNA. Instead, to stay alive your basal metabolism must work constantly to repair and replenish the damage constantly done to your systems, despite already being as protected as possible. In any natural setting, with all the natural compounds, from water to nitrogen based, organic molecules will not persist, nor will they outcompete the inorganics in rate reactions at reactions sites, and instead will be rapidly degraded into sub parts which will increase global free energy and entropy (no spontaneous reaction can ever decrease entropy, all reactions in your cells that drive the formation of more complex molecules are non spontaneous and decrease entropy; thus requiring large amounts of energy).

Point 9: It takes ATP to make proteins and proteins to make ATP and RNA to make proteins and proteins to make RNA, and DNA to encode it all.

Point 10: Spontaneously occurring lipid layers are monolayers, not bilayers like are necessary for cells. Bilayers do not form naturally. (SCHURHOLZ, T; SCHINDLER, H
LIPID-PROTEIN SURFACE-FILMS GENERATED FROM MEMBRANE-VESICLES - SELFASSEMBLY, COMPOSITION, AND FILM STRUCTURE
EUROPEAN BIOPHYSICS JOURNAL, 20 (2): 71-78 1991)

Point 11: Abiogenesis is impossible within the laws of chemistry and physics and has never been demonstrated, even in lab settings: No living systems have ever been produced, nor any organic molecules actually sufficiant for the use of chemical replication.

Point 12: Males can produce milk http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003879.html . Those parts of us are not nonfunctional.

Point 13: Is any part of DNA really nonfunctional? The very curving of DNA has been shown to act as a regulator (Yersinia genus which includes tuberculosis and the black plague regulates its expression of flagellum or viral secreters based on temperature through the use of the bending of its DNA intristicly at the promoter sites depending on the temperature. This allows the switch from motile non-infectious to infectious when the temperature changes to that of a host's body). So then, even the very length, curing, and structure of DNA is vital for expression. Heterochromatin and methalization also affects what genes will be silenced in a cell line perminantly, impared, or left alone from the day your cell lines differenciate (and is completely random, intristicly only to you the individual). microRNA and iRNA are small snippits of what were otherwise thought to be either fossil, nonfunctional, or satalite DNA that actually stops the coding of virus RNA before it can make the leap into our genome and infect a cell. On top of this, satalites and transposons sometimes seperate an important inhibitor/promoter for a gene many megabase pairs away from that gene; architectual proteins will bend the DNA back in on itself to allow that site to interact with the promotor region before transcription. Even distance is a percise and critical issue in DNA.

Point 14: Duplicating a gene is not as good for evolutionary models as one would think. For instance, as with point 13, there is epigenetic information which is vital for gene expression, and which most likely will not be captured in a duplication event, leaving the gene unexpressible (such as the cat and tata boxes). If a double gene is expressible, then gene dosage effects will cause problems. Cri-de-chat and down syndrom are two such instances of what gene dosage problems will cause. Also, sometimes a double dose of a gene is necessary for a physiological function; such as the genes that encode color vision, one loss will cause color blindness of a red or green; the FoxP2 gene which is important for speech includes two copies, the loss of one will inhibit the ability to ever speak. Gene dosage is not an arbitrary matter, nor are promotor/inhibitor/general transcription regions. Even location is not arbitrary in genetic material. Note also that Yersinia are bacteria: prokaryots are no less complex than eukaryots in this matter, just different in systems.

Point 15: Changing Hox genes, as seen in the four-winged fruitfly, does not give examples for evolutionary change. In the instance of the fly was the decreased expression of Ubx, a Hox gene that surpresses other genes and causes the development of a spur instead of a wing. However, when Ubx is not expressed and those second pair of wings are allowed to develop, they are nonfunctional, having no muscle nor neural connections of any sort. They are useless, and the flies cannot mate with other flies. In addition, the expression of Ubx varies species to species. No other pertinent Hox gene experiments have occurred, leaving the subject lacking to say the least.

Point 16: Molecular data and fossil data can often be completely at ends with eachother. For instance, the molecular data of mitochondria of the red wolf supports the hypothesis that the red wolf is a hybrid of cyotes and the grey wolf. However, red wolves appear substantially before either cyotes or grey wolves. Sufficive to say, this casts doubt on that particular bundle of evidence. Furthermore, if cyotes and grey wolves can interbreed to produce viable offspring (red wolves), then they are the same species, just different breeds. Certainly the difference between them is far less than a Saint Bernard and a Chuahuah. In fact, by the standard criteria of what constitutes a species, there are far less species in existance than the "splitters" (who wish to group every thing in its own species and who dominate science at this time) like to proport. This also casts an interesting light on the fossil record and the fact that the saying something is a species is an arbitrary act.

Point 17: Mitochondria are said to be endosymbiots in eukaryots. Even this being the case, the line of reasoning that this is supported by mitochondria haveing a double membrain is a fallacy. The space between the two membrains opperates at a pH of 3.0 as that is where hydrogens are pumped for the use in chemiosmosis and oxidative phosphorolation (ATP synthesis). If there was not another barrier, these hydrogens would diffuse in the cytosol, reducing the speed of ATP synthesis, and killing the cell. Likewise is this the case for the chloroplast. Moreover, the genes in a mitochondria are not all its own, and much regulation occurs from the nucleus. But the genes that are in a mitochondria are specific genes necessary for the production of ATPsynthase as well as the fission of the mitochondria into two daughter versions. These genes are critical to mitochondrial function, and the speed at which they must opperate necessitates their presence in the mitochondria themselves. Therefore, becareful about the reasoning of lines of evidence, and evaluate critically.

Point 18: Most mutations are neutral because they are silent or synominous mutations, that is, mutations that do not change which amino acid is coded for, even if the codon is changed to an alternate version (however, there is codon bias which does make these mutations somewhat harmful and slows the synthesis of proteins with non-optimal genes). It is well beyond our computational power to compute all the free energy potentials for a folding protein, thus any sort of mutation in a protein can have drastic effects on its folding patterns. Infact, many elaborate chaperone proteins exist to sequester proteins away from outside influences and into a controlled environment which will force their folding into a specific conformation. Spongiform Encephalitis (mad cow disease) is caused by an alternate conformation that a prion can take. This misfolded protein aggregates in brain cells to cause whole areas of missing neural tissue. Alzheimer's disease is also caused by a misfolded protein aggregate. Protein folding is critical for function. However, some proteins do have permissive propperties which mutations on the outer framework can enhance or decline, but these are specific sorts of mutations that do not change the structure of the protein (which is needed for evolution). Sickle-cell anemia is also the result of a single amino substitution that causes a cross linking between subunits of haemoglobin that reduces and debilhitates its ability to transport oxygen.

Point 19: A mutation in a single gene can not only silence that gene, but the entire gene cascade that depends on this gene. This is seen in Yersinia pestis, the Black Plauge, which has had a single mutation in one of the fifty flageller genes which has consequently silenced all those 49 other genes stopping all flagellum expression. A good copy of the gene introduced will restore motility to this bacteria. This complex system, there in, cannot tollerate any sort of mutations whatsoever or the entire system is immediately lost, making it impossible for natural selection to work, or ever had worked, upon. Some systems have good tollerance to mutation, but many do not. Mutations are not a simple matter.

Point 20: Intelligent Design indeed offers no contending theory, even while showing the flaws of the current theory and how it does not line up with evidence. Even if that is the case, another theory based on that evidence must be proported to challenge evolution and be called science. Thus, ID is not science in my eyes, as it is not empirically based, just as evolution is not fully empirically based. The way of things will remain as long as there is no better theory however, and it is not likely that the current realm of human thought shall produce such a theory, unless we gather more information which fortunately is being done.

There's alot more I could say to correct the misconceptions I've seen thus far, but right now I need to study for my Biometrics exam that's tomorrow; and I'm still rueing the loss of my original post. Thus, I shall stop here.

___________


Last edited by zero_saiyaman on Fri Jan 27, 2006 6:11 am; edited 4 times in total
Back to top
Atheist
Hopelessly devoted
Dream Deity

Age: 37
Posts: 2204
Joined: 25 Sep 2002
Last Visit: 29 Sep 2018
Location: California, USA
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2006 6:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Great post, Saiyaman. My only argument would be targeted at Point 11, which is a blatant expression of personal opinion, and cannot be shown to be true in this early stage of science. If you think evidence of abiogenesis should become apparent to scientists after just a few decades of research (bearing in mind this is a process that supposedly took millions of years, and we don't even know what the chances of it happening really were), you're putting a little too much faith in the process. Regardless of what we presume to believe, humans know practically nothing about the universe, and indeed life itself. Our understanding of science in the present day is probably about the equivilent of a two month-old baby's understanding of how a computer works. To draw a conclusion right now regarding the possibilty of life arising from non-life when we honestly don't know anything at all about the underlying process (yet), simply highlights a desire to give in and cling to a more comforting theory instead--however vague that theory may be. smile

___________
Back to top
zero_saiyaman
Lucid Initiate
Lucid Initiate

Age: 34
Posts: 82
Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Last Visit: 08 Jun 2006
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2006 6:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I believe this is incorrect. The universe opperates under a set of static laws. Those laws have bounds and limits, and where one ends, another begins. However, we know well the laws of chemistry, especially organic chemistry, and all chemical reactions are bound by the fact that the fastest, and most free energy releasing reaction will always win (entropy especially dictates reaction kinetics). There are no exceptions, as any industrial chemist will tell you. We get the products we get from chemistry by percisely regulating the temperature, pressure, mixing, and most importantly the composition of whatever solution we are toying with.

With that said, anything that would allow the breaking of the natural laws and allow the creation of organic life from inorganics would therefore be an act of the supernatural. It cannot occur in nature due to natural laws, and even volumetrics; so any act that broke those laws would therefor be outside of our law bound universe and be, as the expression goes, an "Act of God".

But, I guess as you said, that could be regarded as personal oppinion and faith that the natural world always plays out as it should. (Which, interestingly enough, is the philosophical foundation of science and what makes scientific inquiry possible)

___________


Last edited by zero_saiyaman on Fri Jan 27, 2006 6:22 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
Atheist
Hopelessly devoted
Dream Deity

Age: 37
Posts: 2204
Joined: 25 Sep 2002
Last Visit: 29 Sep 2018
Location: California, USA
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2006 6:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sure, the laws of chemistry are static, and we can (in theory) learn how to predict the outcome of any given chemical reaction, but you have to remember that life is extremely complicated. I've never heard a qualified scientist openly state that abiogensis is absolutely impossible, and this is because they understand that we just don't have the resources at this stage to properly investigate the conditions required to acheive the desired results. Here you are, going against the common opinion among biologists, and I'm just not willing to accept that you have more reason to form your conclusion than they do.

Science isn't a brainwashed cult, as certain members of this forum will have you believe. Most scientists can't wait to prove each other wrong. To have their name referenced as the "one who defeated Darwin", or whatever popular theory refuses to die. The vast majority believe evolution happened, and that abiogenesis is still a likely possibility. They just don't have the ability to tear the theory apart right now and claim with certainty that it couldn't have happened--and neither do you.

___________
Back to top
zero_saiyaman
Lucid Initiate
Lucid Initiate

Age: 34
Posts: 82
Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Last Visit: 08 Jun 2006
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2006 6:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The reason there is no ability to tear abiogenesis apart is because there is no theory for abiogenesis (though some tentitive hypotheses). Yes, we cannot rip into something without the propper evidence, but we also cannot rip into something that does not exist.

As we can see from rates of depurination, the fact RNA cannot self polymerize diesterphosphate bonds, that proteins cannot self polymerize in the presence of other natural compounds, and the fact that other natural compounds will react at faster chemical rates than these things will with themselves (from water to other nitrogen compounds to a host of carboxyl groups), there is no theory out there that stipulates how any of the self replicating processes of life came from inorganics. The closest I've seen is a paper on crystal aggrigates, but it is rather bizzare and not cited in any literature out there, so similarily dismissed by fellow scientists (and nor did it figure anything out either, and instead, rather moved backwards away from organics into di-repeating units of the same protein or molecule; and didn't even begin to stipulate where the proteins or DNA and RNA could have came from).

___________
Back to top
zero_saiyaman
Lucid Initiate
Lucid Initiate

Age: 34
Posts: 82
Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Last Visit: 08 Jun 2006
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2006 6:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh, I do think I see where that point may have annoyed you, in that it does sound like I was saying "OMG, there is no theory for this so IT MUST NOT BE POSSIBLE!!!oneone11!!"

No, I was saying it isn't possible under the currently understood laws of physics and chemistry which give not only no provision for the abiogenesis of the necessary building blocks for replicating life, but instead stop it at every courner. (and are always working to try to kill us too.. and they do eventually win. Blasted physics *grumble*)

___________
Back to top
Atheist
Hopelessly devoted
Dream Deity

Age: 37
Posts: 2204
Joined: 25 Sep 2002
Last Visit: 29 Sep 2018
Location: California, USA
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2006 7:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Heh. I wasn't annoyed by it at all, it just didn't seem to be as well researched and backed-up as the rest of your points, which were all very insightful. I can definitely see your point, though, and I understand that we have no proposed theory of abiogensis at this stage (as in, nothing that we can actually test), but I also believe we don't have the necessary understanding of biochemistry at this stage to actually dismiss the idea entirely. I'm just waiting for new discoveries to shed some light on it either way. smile

___________
Back to top
zero_saiyaman
Lucid Initiate
Lucid Initiate

Age: 34
Posts: 82
Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Last Visit: 08 Jun 2006
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2006 7:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very true, and I'm right there with ya ^^. It'll be very interesting to see how things pan out in these next few years. Heck, they are even trying to get approval to do stuff in the vacuum of space!

___________
Back to top
Lebowsk1
Dream Deity
Dream Deity

Age: 39
Posts: 1868
Joined: 19 May 2002
Last Visit: 28 Nov 2012
Location: Staines, uk
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2006 8:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am very pleased someone of real scientific skill has vindicated my abiogenesis position. I'm a layman philosopher of biology but with the internet and a critical mind at hand I've managed to get the basic gist of the issues. It's great to see someone fill in the details here. smile

I do differ slightly from you with regard the philosophy of science though because I think ID theory fits the bill. But if you want to explore this in more detail head on over to the ID thread (the two were split for this reason). In this thread, addressing the shortcomings of Darwinism, I agree wholeheartedly.

But yeah, the lack of an abiogenesis theory is seriously underestimated by most people and I think the scientific community is being dishonest by refusing to clarify where they're at in that regard. Last night's documentary would have benefited hugely from a discussion of this issue. It's like there's a big bluff going on waiting to be exposed, and the reason for that bluff is that naturalism has gone from being a useful methodological framework under which to conduct science to the official metaphysic of science. But Atheist, of course I don't think all scientists are jerks: watching that ID-Evo documentary last night filled me with admiration for Behe, Dembski and Meyer etc. I consider them intellectual role-models.

Plus Behe was rockin' a cool hat, heheh.

Edit: Josh, check out point 14 btw. I learnt a lot about this in Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells.

___________
Back to top
Lebowsk1
Dream Deity
Dream Deity

Age: 39
Posts: 1868
Joined: 19 May 2002
Last Visit: 28 Nov 2012
Location: Staines, uk
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2006 10:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

DreamingParent: yeah, the strength of my feelings on this subject surprises even me on occasion. But you have to understand I live in a country where Charles Darwin is on the national currency. He stares back at me every time I use a 10 note. I have to COLLECT pieces of paper with Darwin on! cry

I would really like to start some kind of petition to get him off the money but sadly I think the mood here in the UK is even more pro-Darwin than in the US.

___________
Back to top
Atheist
Hopelessly devoted
Dream Deity

Age: 37
Posts: 2204
Joined: 25 Sep 2002
Last Visit: 29 Sep 2018
Location: California, USA
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2006 12:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lebowsk1 wrote:
But you have to understand I live in a country where Charles Darwin is on the national currency. He stares back at me every time I use a 10 note.


There was an article on Slashdot this morning explaining that fewer than 50% of the UK actually believe in Evolution. Granted, even fewer still take an assertive position in favour of ID or creationism (with roughly 15% sitting on the fence), but that still indicates that you live in a mostly Darwin-free country. And here you are stating that you have to struggle to be heard over the mindless followers of Darwinism.

Anyway, I have to reiterate my earlier comments about science being a constant struggle for researches to prove their work against popular opinion. You tend to treat science as a collective group of delusional followers bent on promoting ideas that even they know are false. But this simply isn't true. If I biologist encountered sufficient reason for him to oppose the theory of evolution during his studies, you can bet he would be damn sure to raise a fuss over it. You're of the opinion that scientists are (for whatever reason) convincing themselves that evolution is correct, and are simply ignoring the facts that counter the theory in favour of those that support it. But again, this isn't how it works. Evolutionary scientists (the vast majority of qualified biologists, in fact) don't all join a secret IRC channel each day and plan their next move in a global scheme to teach people false ideals. If anyone had a reason to doubt the validity of the theory, they would speak out, and they would present evidence to dismiss the current view. Nobody has done that, because nobody has found evidence that so definitively shoots down the theory. As Saiyaman said, science can only disprove, it can never prove. As much as you like to believe they have disproved the theory of evolution (you're constantly stating that it's easily disproved using the known laws of chemistry), if this were actually true, it wouldn't still be promoted by a very impressive 90% of biologists.

I mentioned this months ago (and in response I distinctly remember being told that I apparently lacked the intellect to perform my own research ), but we really should listen to those who are presently in the position to perform tests and get results. And almost every single one of them is telling us time and time again, yes, evolution still appears to check out. I just don't see how such a large-scale plot to keep evolution in the top position despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary could continue to be upheld. But then, I don't have the mind of a conspiracy theorist. smile

___________
Back to top
Lebowsk1
Dream Deity
Dream Deity

Age: 39
Posts: 1868
Joined: 19 May 2002
Last Visit: 28 Nov 2012
Location: Staines, uk
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2006 1:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Atheist wrote:
There was an article on Slashdot this morning explaining that fewer than 50% of the UK actually believe in Evolution. Granted, even fewer still take an assertive position in favour of ID or creationism (with roughly 15% sitting on the fence), but that still indicates that you live in a mostly Darwin-free country. And here you are stating that you have to struggle to be heard over the mindless followers of Darwinism.

Well ok, the media is hugely pro-Darwin. One review I read this morning with regard last night's Horizon documentary suggested that the narrator should have been even more biased in favour of evolution, and that the programme was somehow at fault for making it even seem remotely like a scientific debate.

On the doc Dawkins even proclaimed that the only people accepting ID are people who "know nothing". This was immediately followed by Stephen Meyer announcing that the Discovery Institute has a Darwin-skeptical paper with over 450 signatures of scientists. Actual qualified scientists. As Meyer stated, that may be a minority, but it is a signifigant, qualified minority that is growing.

So how anybody can watch that and say what the media say about it I don't know.

Plus, do you have Darwin on the currency? I think if the poll takers had phrased the question as "do you think people came from monkeys in Africa?" then the percentage would have been a lot higher.
Quote:
Anyway, I have to reiterate my earlier comments about science being a constant struggle for researches to prove their work against popular opinion. You tend to treat science as a collective group of delusional followers bent on promoting ideas that even they know are false. But this simply isn't true. If I biologist encountered sufficient reason for him to oppose the theory of evolution during his studies, you can bet he would be damn sure to raise a fuss over it.

And what, exactly, do you think the likes of Dr Mike Behe and Proffesor Emeritus Dean Kenyon are doing?!?!? smile
Quote:
You're of the opinion that scientists are (for whatever reason) convincing themselves that evolution is correct, and are simply ignoring the facts that counter the theory in favour of those that support it. But again, this isn't how it works. Evolutionary scientists (the vast majority of qualified biologists, in fact) don't all join a secret IRC channel each day and plan their next move in a global scheme to teach people false ideals.

Yeah, I'm not arguing that Darwinism is a conspiracy. It isnt the same as the 9/11 issue for me, in that way.
Quote:
If anyone had a reason to doubt the validity of the theory, they would speak out, and they would present evidence to dismiss the current view. Nobody has done that, because nobody has found evidence that so definitively shoots down the theory.

Firstly, re-read my comments above regarding Mike and Dean. You seem to be ignoring them (and the over 450 others like them).

Secondly, as has been pointed out, in the case of abiogenesis there ISNT a mechanism to shoot down! So really Dembski's CSI, as flawed as you may think it is, really is the only horse in the race, when you think about it!!

I'd also argue that there doesnt seem to be a clear target for shoot-down for the case of macro-evolution. So y'know, Darwin is a tricky target, no denying that.
Quote:
As Saiyaman said, science can only disprove, it can never prove. As much as you like to believe they have disproved the theory of evolution (you're constantly stating that it's easily disproved using the known laws of chemistry), if this were actually true, it wouldn't still be promoted by a very impressive 90% of biologists.

Argument ad popularum is a logical fallacy. What if those 10% of biologists are right? They are biologists, just the same as the other 90%, right?

And anyway, what I'm saying is that the evidence fits ID theory better than it does Darwinian evolution theory. That is my position. I'm not saying I've "disproved" evolution, I'm just saying the hypothesis does not seem to fit the evidence, and there is another one around that does.
Quote:
I mentioned this months ago (and in response I distinctly remember being told that I apparently lacked the intellect to perform my own research )

lol No hard feelings I hope.
Quote:
but we really should listen to those who are presently in the position to perform tests and get results.

Ok well I'm listening to Dr Mike Behe, Dr Scott Minnich, Dr Dean Kenyon, Dr Jed Mokosko etc etc.

I'm also listening to their opponents but they don't seem to make as much sense...
Quote:
And almost every single one of them

Argument to popularity again.
Quote:
is telling us time and time again, yes, evolution still appears to check out.

Now people, think about this:

Can you not see what I mean when I say Darwinism is a religion? You are saying that we should let the people in white tell us what to think.

Well fortunately there are people in white who offer an alternative to the mainstream.
Quote:
I just don't see how such a large-scale plot to keep evolution in the top position despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary could continue to be upheld. But then, I don't have the mind of a conspiracy theorist. smile

Hah, nice dig. But I don't think this is a conspiracy, not in the sense that there is deliberate deception going on. When Dawkins stands up and says he believes in evolution I believe he really does. When Bush stands up and says he had no foreknowledge of 9/11 then...

well, lets keep it on topic shall we?

___________


Last edited by Lebowsk1 on Fri Jan 27, 2006 1:14 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
Atheist
Hopelessly devoted
Dream Deity

Age: 37
Posts: 2204
Joined: 25 Sep 2002
Last Visit: 29 Sep 2018
Location: California, USA
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2006 1:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Haha. Interesting response. smile

It's true that Behe (among others) have stepped away from the crowd and are attempting to prove ID has more merit than Evolution, but they aren't providing the kind of evidence I was talking about. Behe attempts to prove Evolution is impossible by introducing the concept of IC, but what he hasn't done, is use actual biology to disprove the theory. As stated above, science can only disprove, and never prove anything. Surely, then, he should be able to provide evidence in biological terms that definitively prove to every other biologist on the planet that evolution couldn't have happened. If two biologists disagree there (Behe and someone in support of Evo, for example), then that means neither of them has properly proved or disproved the theory in terms that both scientists agree would be sufficient. If biology doesn't support marcoevolutionary changes, then every biologist in the world only needs to read about the reasons for this, and suddenly they'll change their mind, right?

You shook your head just now. Why? Assuming they aren't just following popular opinion, what reason would they have to continue supporting Evolution if a biolgist in the same field could actually show them that it wasn't possible? Behe couldn't, so he introduced IC. A powerful argument, but not one that actually shoots down the claims of evolution. Dembski introduced a lot of fancy numbers dealing with probaility, but again, not in a way that fits into existing biological study and properly dismisses the key points of evolution. Again, science is all about disproving things, so you'd think any actual evidence disproving evolution would be taken seriously by biologists. I'm sure we'd all love to believe in eternal life, after all. I know I would. smile

___________
Back to top
Lebowsk1
Dream Deity
Dream Deity

Age: 39
Posts: 1868
Joined: 19 May 2002
Last Visit: 28 Nov 2012
Location: Staines, uk
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2006 1:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Atheist wrote:
It's true that Behe (among others) have stepped away from the crowd and are attempting to prove ID has more merit than Evolution, but they aren't providing the kind of evidence I was talking about. Behe attempts to prove Evolution is impossible by introducing the concept of IC, but what he hasn't done, is use actual biology to disprove the theory.

Both he and Scott Minnich are prominent researchers with regard the bacterial flagellum, and this is why he strongly anchors his theory of IC to it, to provide real-world biological examples.
Quote:
As stated above, science can only disprove, and never prove anything.

Well I differ slightly from Zero on this... I think science can make hypotheses and see if they have any relation to observed events. Philosophy of science is hard. It's very tough to rigorously define what science is (which makes Judge Jones's attempts to do so rather amusing).
Quote:
Surely, then, he should be able to provide evidence in biological terms that definitively prove to every other biologist on the planet that evolution couldn't have happened.

Behe actually gives Darwinian mechanisms a huge amount of credit (by even assuming there are any, perhaps) but his theory of IC explains why it would not seem that any Darwinian mechanism could explain certain systems. He highlights the flagellum as such a system.
Quote:
If two biologists disagree there (Behe and someone in support of Evo, for example), then that means neither of them has properly proved or disproved the theory in terms that both scientists agree would be sufficient.

Well, no, both or either scientists could be mistaken. Scientists are human. But yes, it would lend some kind of support to one or other of the theories.
Quote:
Assuming they aren't just following popular opinion, what reason would they have to continue supporting Evolution if a biolgist in the same field could actually show them that it wasn't possible?

So, assuming they arent connected in any way to the rest of the population and are the ideal of objectivity personified in human form, then yeah there would be no reason. But they are human scientists.
Quote:
Behe couldn't, so he introduced IC. A powerful argument, but not one that actually shoots down the claims of evolution.

I think it shoots down some of the central claims.
Quote:
Dembski introduced a lot of fancy numbers dealing with probaility, but again, not in a way that fits into existing biological study and properly dismisses the key points of evolution.

I think the strength of CSI actually lies at a very basic level, about the nature of code itself (that it is complex and specified). The actuall statistical calculations, to me, are secondary, and I actually differ very slightly from Dembski in how I'd go about them.
Quote:
I'm sure we'd all love to believe in eternal life, after all. I know I would. smile

Well go for it then. Why not?

___________


Last edited by Lebowsk1 on Fri Jan 27, 2006 5:42 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.     |##| -> |=|     LD4all archive Forum Index » Philosopher's Cloud All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 6 of 8

 



© pasQuale - donations greatly appreciated
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group