PDA

View Full Version : Science sometimes moves backwards.



bob b
March 13th, 2006, 05:39 PM
This short article makes the case that science sometimes makes blunders that move progress backwards for a time.

http://www.idthefuture.com/2006/03/percival_lowell_mars_and_intel.html#more

Mr Fields
March 13th, 2006, 10:41 PM
This short article makes the case that science sometimes makes blunders that move progress backwards for a time.

http://www.idthefuture.com/2006/03/percival_lowell_mars_and_intel.html#more

Religion has been backwards since day one, so there's only one way it could possibly go.

bowhunter
March 13th, 2006, 10:44 PM
Religion has been backwards since day one, so there's only one way it could possibly go.

And you can prove this statement HOW? Just shows your prejudice.

Mr Fields
March 13th, 2006, 10:49 PM
And you can prove this statement HOW? Just shows your prejudice.

No need to prove it. It's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. I'm not trying to prove anything or present it as fact in a public school.

BTW -- Prejudice? How could my previous post be construed as prejudice?

avatar382
March 13th, 2006, 11:47 PM
Any scientist will concede that science has been wrong before. Exhibit A: The Bohr model of the atom.

However, the paradigm of science is built so that outdated or incorrect models are easily replaced by better ones. So, what is your point?

bob b
March 14th, 2006, 09:43 AM
Any scientist will concede that science has been wrong before. Exhibit A: The Bohr model of the atom.

However, the paradigm of science is built so that outdated or incorrect models are easily replaced by better ones. So, what is your point?

They are not always "easily" replaced.

"Random mutations plus natural selection" as a mechanism to cause macroevolution is a perfect example.

avatar382
March 14th, 2006, 11:15 AM
They are not always "easily" replaced.

"Random mutations plus natural selection" as a mechanism to cause macroevolution is a perfect example.

The theory of evolution is the best model we have to explain the diversity of life on Earth. The fact that it is referred to as a "theory" is a testament to it's explanatory power and maturity.

If you disagree that the TOE is the best model we have to date, and believe you have a better one, then you should show how your proposed model is superior to the existing one.

bob b
March 14th, 2006, 11:20 AM
The theory of evolution is the best model we have to explain the diversity of life on Earth. The fact that it is referred to as a "theory" is a testament to it's explanatory power and maturity.

If you disagree that the TOE is the best model we have to date, and believe you have a better one, then you should show how your proposed model is superior to the existing one.

This thread is about how science sometimes moves backwards for a time before continuing its march toward the truth. You should start a new thread if you want to talk about something else.

avatar382
March 14th, 2006, 11:27 AM
This thread is about how science sometimes moves backwards for a time before continuing its march toward the truth. You should start a new thread if you want to talk about something else.

Fair enough.

I will point out however that the aspect of science you are referring to is a great asset, not a liability. Specifically, that when and if science is wrong, the scientific paradigm is designed to mitigate this and correct itself. (peer review, etc)

Contrast this with Young Earth Creationism, which cannot be changed or modified to fit new evidence, because it is based on biblical literalism. (i.e., that the Bible must be absolutely true is a premise)

bob b
March 14th, 2006, 12:40 PM
Fair enough.

I will point out however that the aspect of science you are referring to is a great asset, not a liability. Specifically, that when and if science is wrong, the scientific paradigm is designed to mitigate this and correct itself. (peer review, etc)

Of course it is a great asset. The question is whether it is appropriate to attempt to apply the scientific method to things which even most scientists would agree are beyond its realm, namely the creation of the universe and the creation of life from non-life.


Contrast this with Young Earth Creationism, which cannot be changed or modified to fit new evidence, because it is based on biblical literalism. (i.e., that the Bible must be absolutely true is a premise)

You are most certainly wrong about this because I am personally aware of many of the initial ideas of creation science from years ago that were modified as more scientific information has become available. Of course there are two that are immutable, the same two I listed above which lie beyond the reach of the scientific method. :wave:

And your other point about the Bible being absolutely true is a slippery criterion, because as we can easily see on this forum, there is no universal agreement on what the Bible is actually saying! ;)

avatar382
March 14th, 2006, 01:43 PM
Of course it is a great asset. The question is whether it is appropriate to attempt to apply the scientific method to things which even most scientists would agree are beyond its realm, namely the creation of the universe and the creation of life from non-life.

Bob - the theory of evolution is not at all concerned with the creation of the universe, and the creation of life from not life. Such things are beyond it's scope.

Will you concede this?


You are most certainly wrong about this because I am personally aware of many of the initial ideas of creation science from years ago that were modified as more scientific information has become available. Of course there are two that are immutable, the same
two I listed above which lie beyond the reach of the scientific method. :wave:

I would be interested in some examples of these initial ideas in creation science that were modified.

Also, there is more than is immutable in YEC thought than you are admitting. An obvious example: The age of the earth. You say ~10000 years old. Is this something that can change with new "creation science discoveries", seeing as how an Earth that is any older would conflict with a literal interpretation of the Bible?


And your other point about the Bible being absolutely true is a slippery criterion, because as we can easily see on this forum, there is no universal agreement on what the Bible is actually saying! ;)

Do you believe that we can obtain complete, absolute truth from a literal interpretation of the Bible on matters of creation? I certainly agree with your observation that there is no universal agreement on the Bible, but to me, that ambiguity is a sign of weakness...

bob b
March 14th, 2006, 02:01 PM
Bob - the theory of evolution is not at all concerned with the creation of the universe, and the creation of life from not life. Such things are beyond it's scope.
Will you concede this?

Nope. It's illogical to try to ignore a situation that is a natural consequence of one's theory: namely if you want to extrapolate backwards without limit where do you stop and what have you extrapolated to anyway?

It's like the scientist who extrapolates the Big Bang back to zero and then wonders why people want to know what then?

It's "turtles all the way down" doesn't make it. ;)


I would be interested in some examples of these initial ideas in creation science that were modified.

Try answersingenesis and the institute for creation research. Also any evolutionist book which mocks creationists. You see it is ok if scientists change their mind but not ok if creationists do it.


Also, there is more than is immutable in YEC thought than you are admitting. An obvious example: The age of the earth. You say ~10000 years old. Is this something that can change with new "creation science discoveries", seeing as how an Earth that is any older would conflict with a literal interpretation of the Bible?

If young earth creationists became convinced that time dilation applied to the expansion of the universe I have no doubt that they would modify their ideas to fit the evidence. Do you think creation scientists are stupid? Apparently you do but I don't. At least most of them that is.


Do you believe that we can obtain complete, absolute truth from a literal interpretation of the Bible on matters of creation?

The accounts are too sketchy to achieve complete truth, but they do provide interesting "clues".


I certainly agree with your observation that there is no universal agreement on the Bible, but to me, that ambiguity is a sign of weakness...

Name any comparable collection of stories that can't be interpreted multiple ways. Authors tell us how critics and analysts read meanings into their stories that amaze even the one who wrote them!!

l0progression
March 14th, 2006, 03:37 PM
Of course it is a great asset. The question is whether it is appropriate to attempt to apply the scientific method to things which even most scientists would agree are beyond its realm, namely the creation of the universe and the creation of life from non-life.


Might I point out that abiogenesis and evolutionare two completely seperate theories.

On a side note: Hi! This is my first post here. :cheers:

Jukia
March 14th, 2006, 03:53 PM
Might I point out that abiogenesis and evolutionare two completely seperate theories.

On a side note: Hi! This is my first post here. :cheers:

Welcome, but you will soon realize that few here consider abiogenesis and evolution separate matters. And since we have no proof of abiogenesis (see Urey) then clearly evolution is a function of the great atheistic left wing commie (and probably homo) conspiracy that has its basis in public (also known as "government") education.

But you will have fun!!!!

bob b
March 14th, 2006, 03:53 PM
Might I point out that abiogenesis and evolutionare two completely seperate theories.

On a side note: Hi! This is my first post here. :cheers:

It is certainly true that more recently evolutionists have attempted to do this, but in the earlier days when abiogenesis was thought to be "easy" that it was typically included as another reason to doubt the mythology of the Bible.

I just checked through some of the earlier evolution books in my library by some of the early "saints" and that seems to have been the case, even including Darwin himself.

Johnny
March 14th, 2006, 03:56 PM
I just checked throught some of the earlier evolution books in my library by some of the early "saints" and that seems to have been the case, even including Darwin himself.Can you post some quotes and references?

bob b
March 14th, 2006, 04:12 PM
Can you post some quotes and references?

Why would I bother?

"Out of context, out of context".

I've chased those rabbit trails too many times to go down that road again.

Besides, as I've already explained on a thread here, my objective is not to win over diehard evolutionists (impossible, really), but to simply provide some contrary evidence to those sitting on the fence.

Johnny
March 14th, 2006, 11:54 PM
"Today's Google icon pays homage to Percival Lowell, the 19th century astronomer who popularized the notion that there were Martian-made canals on the surface of Mars and, therefore, Martians."

Just thought it was kind of funny that an ID author mentions Lowell, who mistook canals on mars as being intelligently designed.

avatar382
March 15th, 2006, 10:00 AM
Nope. It's illogical to try to ignore a situation that is a natural consequence of one's theory: namely if you want to extrapolate backwards without limit where do you stop and what have you extrapolated to anyway?

It's like the scientist who extrapolates the Big Bang back to zero and then wonders why people want to know what then?

It's "turtles all the way down" doesn't make it. ;)

Bob, you have an incorrect understanding of the theory of evolution. You really owe it to yourself to study the theory until you attain a complete understanding if you claim to be a "science lover".

The "situation" of life from non-life is NOT a part of the theory of evolution. That is fact. Simply put, all the theory of evolution states is that Any two distinct forms of life share a common ancestor. Evolution is a model for explaining the diversity of life, not the origin of life.

Big Bang, abiogenesis, etc are all far beyond the scope of evolution - and possess nowhere near the certainty. This is why there is no "theory of Big Bang" or "theory of abiogenesis". The fact is, science doesn't really know how the universe or life started. All we have are guesses based on the scientific paradigm. In fact, it is possible that the answers to such questions are simply beyond the human capacity to understand.


Try answersingenesis and the institute for creation research. Also any evolutionist book which mocks creationists. You see it is ok if scientists change their mind but not ok if creationists do it.

If young earth creationists became convinced that time dilation applied to the expansion of the universe I have no doubt that they would modify their ideas to fit the evidence. Do you think creation scientists are stupid? Apparently you do but I don't. At least most of them that is.

The accounts are too sketchy to achieve complete truth, but they do provide interesting "clues".

My understanding of young-earth creationism is that it is accepting the literal contents of the Bible as fact and absolute truth. If this impression is wrong, please correct me.

A consequence of this is that a literal interpretation of the Bible allows drastically less room for wiggling before it's not a 'literal' interpretation anymore!

I would argue that a literal interpretation of Genesis on the age of the earth means 10,000 earth revolutions around the sun as we know it, and not a day longer! Change that, and it's not literal any more!


Name any comparable collection of stories that can't be interpreted multiple ways. Authors tell us how critics and analysts read meanings into their stories that amaze even the one who wrote them!!

Bob, I can't name any other collection of ancient books that isn't also ambigious, but I'm not the one claiming that the Bible is to be taken literally for absolute truth. :) Can we know for certain that the Bible is even meant to be taken literally?

Johnny
March 15th, 2006, 10:53 AM
Why would I bother?

"Out of context, out of context".But if they're not out of context why would you worry?

Here's the deal. It doesn't really matter who you quote saying what. The theory of evolution is not, in any way, logically dependent upon the validity of abiogenesis. Thus, to refute one is not to refute the other. This is our point. You may refute abiogenesis, but this says nothing about the principles of natural selection. Mutations and natural selection can still take place regardless of abiogenesis. You haven't made a logical connection between the principles and driving force of natural selection and abiogenesis that would validate grouping them together.

bob b
March 15th, 2006, 11:14 AM
Bob, you have an incorrect understanding of the theory of evolution. You really owe it to yourself to study the theory until you attain a complete understanding if you claim to be a "science lover".

I have in my life and career received many academic honors. I have been studying evolutionary theory for 20+ years now and have read hundreds of books on the subject, mostly by evolutionists. If I don't understand it then I dare say there probably aren't many in this life who do. But I don't think that is the problem, instead it is that my critics seem to know less about the many broad aspects of it than I do and because of their myoptic view have a simplistic understanding which causes them to accept it without thoroughly analysing it.


The "situation" of life from non-life is NOT a part of the theory of evolution. That is fact.

This is one characteristic of the myoptic viewpoint. One can not escape the clear implications of a theory which extrapolates backward in time without limit by simply declaring "I don't wish to discuss the implications of my theory so I will simply say arbitrarily that my theory does not include such implications".


Simply put, all the theory of evolution states is that Any two distinct forms of life share a common ancestor.

That is not all that it states. You should stop lying to yourself.


Evolution is a model for explaining the diversity of life, not the origin of life.

People can be so naive.


Big Bang, abiogenesis, etc are all far beyond the scope of evolution - and possess nowhere near the certainty. This is why there is no "theory of Big Bang" or "theory of abiogenesis".

What planet do you come from? I have been reading about such theories for over 20 years.


The fact is, science doesn't really know how the universe or life started. All we have are guesses based on the scientific paradigm. In fact, it is possible that the answers to such questions are simply beyond the human capacity to understand.

Finally, a sensible statement.


My understanding of young-earth creationism is that it is accepting the literal contents of the Bible as fact and absolute truth. If this impression is wrong, please correct me.

It depends upon what you mean by literal. If you mean logical and reasonable then this would fit most young Earth creationists that I am familiar with. If you mean unreasonably and stupidly and woodenly literal then of course I would demur. I believe that the full range of analogy, metaphor, hyperbole, parable, etc. all exist within the collection of books called "The Bible", but I also believe on scientific as well as scriptural grounds that some things believed by our modern society are simply flat out wrong or even absurd.

"Random mutations plus natural selection" being a driving force which caused all life to have descended from a primitive protocell is the most oustanding example of an absurdity being translated into a modern fairy tale for adults that anyone can possibly imagine.


A consequence of this is that a literal interpretation of the Bible allows drastically less room for wiggling before it's not a 'literal' interpretation anymore!

Your problem, as well as that of most youth, is that you think that everyone who doesn't believe as you do is stupid and "old fashioned". I was no different when I was young.


I would argue that a literal interpretation of Genesis on the age of the earth means 10,000 earth revolutions around the sun as we know it, and not a day longer! Change that, and it's not literal any more!

I would agree with that. It is going to come as a great shock when science changes its collective mind about that. I wish I could live long enough to see that day!

I am old enough to remember when most scientists believed that the universe was eternal.


Bob, I can't name any other collection of ancient books that isn't also ambigious, but I'm not the one claiming that the Bible is to be taken literally for absolute truth.

Who is, other than people who like certainty, and can't stand ambiguity, like some creationists and some evolutionists and atheists? What is fascinating to me is that atheists interpret the Bible in a totally unreasonably literal way in order to discredit it!


Can we know for certain that the Bible is even meant to be taken literally?

Of course. God gave people a brain for more than a place to hold a hat.

avatar382
March 15th, 2006, 12:11 PM
I have in my life and career received many academic honors. I have been studying evolutionary theory for 20+ years now and have read hundreds of books on the subject, mostly by evolutionists. If I don't understand it then I dare say there probably aren't many in this life who do. But I don't think that is the problem, instead it is that my critics seem to know less about the many broad aspects of it than I do and because of their myoptic view have a simplistic understanding which causes them to accept it without thoroughly analysing it.

That all may be, but you have posted incorrect information, so I suggest you study evolutionary theory some more...


This is one characteristic of the myoptic viewpoint. One can not escape the clear implications of a theory which extrapolates backward in time without limit by simply declaring "I don't wish to discuss the implications of my theory so I will simply say arbitrarily that my theory does not include such implications".


That is not all that it states. You should stop lying to yourself.


People can be so naive.

From wikipedia: (if this is not a suitable source for you, I have others)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_evolution

First, a general definition:
In biology, evolution is the process by which novel traits arise in populations and are passed on from generation to generation. Its action over large stretches of time explains the origin of new species and ultimately the vast diversity of the biological world.

A little bit of history:
In the 1930s scientists combined Darwinian natural selection with the theory of Mendelian heredity to create the modern evolutionary synthesis (often simply called the modern synthesis). The modern synthesis understands evolution to be a change in the frequency of alleles within a population from one generation to the next. The mechanisms that produce these changes are the basic mechanisms of population genetics: natural selection and genetic drift acting on genetic variation created by mutation, sex, and gene flow.[1] This theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology. It helps biologists understand topics as diverse as the origin of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, eusociality in insects, and the staggering biodiversity of the living world.

Do you notice something? No mention of the origin of life, only the diversity of life.

This excerpt I will quote: (emphasis mine)


When "evolution" is used to describe a fact, it refers to the observations that populations of one species of organism do, over time, change into new species. In this sense, evolution occurs whenever a new species of bacterium evolves that is resistant to antibodies that had been lethal to prior strains.

When "evolution" is used to describe a theory, it refers to an explanation for why and how evolution (for example, in the sense of "speciation") occurs. An example of evolution as theory is the modern synthesis of Darwin and Wallace's theory of natural selection and Mendel's principles of genetics. This theory has three major aspects:

1. Common descent of all organisms from a single ancestor or ancestral gene pool.
2. Manifestation of novel traits in a lineage.
3. Mechanisms that cause some traits to persist while others perish.


Do you see anything about abiogenesis or Big Bang theory or anything of the sort? No.

Bob, this is a matter of definitions. You are claiming evolution is something that it is not. The theory of evolution is compatible with a wide range of conjectures as to the origin of life - from Old earth creationism to the idea that life has always existed to "we don't know" - but it is not compatable with Biblical literalism. And, I guess that is what your problem is.

If you choose to remain willfully ignorant on this matter, that is your perogative. However, I will say it once more - the theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about the origin of life. I can produce source after source after source supporting this. The notion that it does is your own invention - your strawman caricature.

(Note - I didn't address the rest of your post, please don't take it to mean that I am ignoring it, I just can't see anything in there that will further the discussion. Let me know if I missed something that you would like me to respond to.)

bob b
March 15th, 2006, 12:56 PM
That all may be, but you have posted incorrect information, so I suggest you study evolutionary theory some more...

Please enlighten me as to what I posted that was incorrect, but please do not bother including our disagreement regarding abiogenesis. I know we disagree about that. Is there something else?


From wikipedia: (if this is not a suitable source for you, I have others)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_evolution

This is generally a good source, but obviously not the last word, particularly on points of controversy where all points of view should properly be reflected.


First, a general definition:
In biology, evolution is the process by which novel traits arise in populations and are passed on from generation to generation. Its action over large stretches of time explains the origin of new species and ultimately the vast diversity of the biological world.

That is what its proponents believe and to some degree is accepted by even creationists like myself.


A little bit of history:
In the 1930s scientists combined Darwinian natural selection with the theory of Mendelian heredity to create the modern evolutionary synthesis (often simply called the modern synthesis). The modern synthesis understands evolution to be a change in the frequency of alleles within a population from one generation to the next. The mechanisms that produce these changes are the basic mechanisms of population genetics: natural selection and genetic drift acting on genetic variation created by mutation, sex, and gene flow.[1] This theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology. It helps biologists understand topics as diverse as the origin of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, eusociality in insects, and the staggering biodiversity of the living world.

The section on population genetics is not accurate. If you disagree I will amplify further in another posting.

The comment on antibiotic resistence has been shown by further research to be obsolete.

The theory is weak in that it assigns too great a role to mutations, a degrading not an organizing mechanism.


Do you notice something? No mention of the origin of life, only the diversity of life.

Obviously written by a person who has bought into the rationalization that the obvious implications of a theory which assumes that all life has descended from a hypothetical primitive protocell is exempt from questions about what that assumed ancestor consisted of or how it came to be.

What is fascinating is that the same people who exempt themselves from ultimate origins typically insist that creationists explain how God came to exist. Go figure.


Do you see anything about abiogenesis or Big Bang theory or anything of the sort? No.

Of course they exempt themselves from the obvious. They are not dumb.


Bob, this is a matter of definitions.

Wrong, it is about reality.


You are claiming evolution is something that it is not. The theory of evolution is compatible with a wide range of conjectures as to the origin of life - from Old earth creationism to the idea that life has always existed to "we don't know" - but it is not compatable with Biblical literalism. And, I guess that is what your problem is.

It is most assuredly not compatible with Old earth creationism as any serious Old earth creationist like Hugh Ross would be forced to admit. Old earth creationists assume that God intervened at key points to create new lifeforms, thus causing "macro evolution"


If you choose to remain willfully ignorant on this matter, that is your perogative.

You have been deceived. No serious evolutionist can believe in the Bible, because it is the antithesis of Biblical teaching. Why people cannot see this is a mystery to me..


However, I will say it once more - the theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about the origin of life. I can produce source after source after source supporting this. The notion that it does is your own invention - your strawman caricature.

I didn't say that they don't deny it. I simply said that logically there are implications when you claim that all life descended from a hypothetical primitive protocell and that one can not escape such implications by simply saying "we don't have to talk about them because they are not part of what we do want to talk about".


(Note - I didn't address the rest of your post, please don't take it to mean that I am ignoring it, I just can't see anything in there that will further the discussion. Let me know if I missed something that you would like me to respond to.)

In closing I would only say that you are not alone in not wanting to talk about the implications of listening too "literally" to the evolutions. They speak with "forked tongue" as Tonto would say.

If you would listen to God instead of men you would realize that you can't have it both ways: if God created first life then there is no reason that He could not have created it in multiple types as He said he did.

And if He did that then the "protein folding problem" goes away because the life we see today is nothing more than a diversified and slightly degraded version of those multiple forms created by God in the Beginning. The degradation has escaped the notice of the evolutionists for at least two reasons, 1) it hasn't been going on all that long, and 2) the repair mechanisms, redundancy and failsoft nature of the design has permitted us to survive fairly well in the face of the increasing number of deleterious mutations accumulating over time.

avatar382
March 15th, 2006, 04:41 PM
Please enlighten me as to what I posted that was incorrect, but please do not bother including our disagreement regarding abiogenesis. I know we disagree about that. Is there something else?

Well Bob, it seems to be me there isn't much we can debate, since we cannot agree on a definition for evolution. You should reconsider your position on this matter and accept the scientific definition of evolution.


Obviously written by a person who has bought into the rationalization that the obvious implications of a theory which assumes that all life has descended from a hypothetical primitive protocell is exempt from questions about what that assumed ancestor consisted of or how it came to be.

Who said anything about a "hypothetical primitive protocell"? What is this 'protocell', anyway? All the theory of evolution says is that any two forms of life share a common ancestor. While it is possible that there was a (presumably unicellular) organism that is the ancestor of all life, but I am not aware of any such thing in biology that is not conjecture.

Here we see another place where you hold something to be true of evolution that is outside of it's scope.

Bob, the so called 'logical conclusion' that evolution implies abiogenesis (life from nonlife) is an invention of yours.

The theory of evolution has the existance of life as a premise. Think about that. Because it assumes life exists, it makes no effort (and cannot, without begging the question) explain where life came from in the first place.


It is most assuredly not compatible with Old earth creationism as any serious Old earth creationist like Hugh Ross would be forced to admit. Old earth creationists assume that God intervened at key points to create new lifeforms, thus causing "macro evolution".

Catholics generally are OEC and accept evolution.
Muslims are generally OEC and accept evolution.
Jews are generally OEC and accept evolution.
...and that is just the abramhamic religions!

There are many that believe that God is the ultimate origin of life, and evolution is the mechanism by which life is diversified.


You have been deceived. No serious evolutionist can believe in the Bible, because it is the antithesis of Biblical teaching. Why people cannot see this is a mystery to me..

Why is it the antithesis? Because it contradicts a literal interpretation?


In closing I would only say that you are not alone in not wanting to talk about the implications of listening too "literally" to the evolutions. They speak with "forked tongue" as Tonto would say.

Well, to be honest, I don't want to discuss what is literal in the Bible and what is not, since that's probably outside the scope of the thread.

SUTG
March 15th, 2006, 04:56 PM
avatar382:I would argue that a literal interpretation of Genesis on the age of the earth means 10,000 earth revolutions around the sun as we know it, and not a day longer! Change that, and it's not literal any more!
bob b:I would agree with that. It is going to come as a great shock when science changes its collective mind about that. I wish I could live long enough to see that day!

Isn't 10,000 Earth revolutions around the sun less than 30 years?!??

Johnny
March 15th, 2006, 05:03 PM
Isn't 10,000 Earth revolutions around the sun less than 30 years?!??Revolutions around the sun, not around Earth's axis.

SUTG
March 15th, 2006, 05:07 PM
:doh:

Jukia
March 16th, 2006, 06:53 AM
Who said anything about a "hypothetical primitive protocell"? What is this 'protocell', anyway? All the theory of evolution says is that any two forms of life share a common ancestor. While it is possible that there was a (presumably unicellular) organism that is the ancestor of all life, but I am not aware of any such thing in biology that is not conjecture.

Here we see another place where you hold something to be true of evolution that is outside of it's scope.

Bob, the so called 'logical conclusion' that evolution implies abiogenesis (life from nonlife) is an invention of yours.

The theory of evolution has the existance of life as a premise. Think about that. Because it assumes life exists, it makes no effort (and cannot, without begging the question) explain where life came from in the first place.


.

You miss the point, many here are stuck on abiogenesis because it enables them to jump and avoid the evidence that supports evolution. Allows them to use various slogans, "molecules to man" etc.

They are either simply ignorant, deceitful or afraid to confront the obvious conflict between a literal interpretation of Genesis and the real world or a combination of all three.

bob b
March 16th, 2006, 08:19 AM
Well Bob, it seems to be me there isn't much we can debate, since we cannot agree on a definition for evolution. You should reconsider your position on this matter and accept the scientific definition of evolution.

The definition excluding first life is disingenuous, and unscientific to boot.


Who said anything about a "hypothetical primitive protocell"? What is this 'protocell', anyway?

Would you prefer "replicating molecule"?


All the theory of evolution says is that any two forms of life share a common ancestor.

I have already pointed out that this is not all that is said. besides, there is abundant evidence that this is not the case.


While it is possible that there was a (presumably unicellular) organism that is the ancestor of all life, but I am not aware of any such thing in biology that is not conjecture.

All of macroevolutionary theory is an unsupported conjecture. In fact the fossil record falsifies macroevolution. Gould and Eldridge "spilled the beans".


Here we see another place where you hold something to be true of evolution that is outside of it's scope.

So how far back should we go with the extrapolation?


Bob, the so called 'logical conclusion' that evolution implies abiogenesis (life from nonlife) is an invention of yours.

Not true. It is simply a logical inference that any non-brainwashed person can easily see.


The theory of evolution has the existance of life as a premise.

Do you think life doesn't exist? Some premise.


Think about that. Because it assumes life exists, it makes no effort (and cannot, without begging the question) explain where life came from in the first place.

Your logic here is incoherent.
Cars exist, therefore one cannot explain where they came from. ????


Catholics generally are OEC and accept evolution.
Muslims are generally OEC and accept evolution.
Jews are generally OEC and accept evolution.
...and that is just the abramhamic religions!

Wow. Great scientific argument!! Russians and Chinese accept communism, so why shouldn't everybody?


There are many that believe that God is the ultimate origin of life, and evolution is the mechanism by which life is diversified.

Conclusion: educational indoctrination works!!


Why is it the antithesis? Because it contradicts a literal interpretation?

I choose to interpret your statement allegorically. What you actually meant by that is that you agree with me.


Well, to be honest, I don't want to discuss what is literal in the Bible and what is not, since that's probably outside the scope of the thread.

Interpretation: the "non-literal" sense of that statement is that you would probably lose that argument too.

avatar382
March 16th, 2006, 11:12 AM
Would you prefer "replicating molecule"?


So how far back should we go with the extrapolation?

"Replicating molecules" are also beyond the scope of the theory of evolution.

Repeat after me: "The theory of evolution states that any two forms of life share a common ancestor".

In terms of extrapolation - All you can "extrapolate" is that if you find two forms of life A and B, there must exist (or have existed) a form of life from which A and B descended.

The anscestor may not necessarily be more simple than the descendants. (this is another common misconception of the theory of evolution).

The theory of evolution is silent on the start of life. When you talk about "replicating molecules", "protocells", etc. you are referring to conjecture on abiogenesis, NOT the theory of evolution!


I have already pointed out that this is not all that is said. besides, there is abundant evidence that this is not the case.

Please start a thread with your "evidence" that any two forms of life do not share a common anscestor - I'm willing to discuss that, but I want to keep this thread on track.

Now - you have stated twice that there is more to the theory of evolution than the definitions I have posted - please outline what they are.


Do you think life doesn't exist? Some premise.


Your logic here is incoherent.
Cars exist, therefore one cannot explain where they came from. ????

You misunderstand me. I will try to explain it again.

They theory of evolution (TOE) makes no sense if you do not assume that life exists. That is, if you have a universe where life does not exist, the notion that life shares common anscestors is nonsensical! Hence, a premise of the TOE is that life exists.

Now, begging the question is a logcal fallacy in which the propostion to be proved Q is included in the premises P.

If the TOE has "life exists" as a premise, then it cannot conclude "life exists" without begging the question.


Wow. Great scientific argument!! Russians and Chinese accept communism, so why shouldn't everybody?

It's not a scienftic argument, it is an observation. There exist people that believe that God created life, and then employed evolution to diversify it. These people are generally included under the OEC umbrella. The TOE is compatable with this, because the TOE is silent on the origin of life.

Bob, a big reason why many disagree with the TOE is because they do not completely understand it. You insist on definining evolution as something that it is not.

When one says the TOE is fact/99% of scientists accept TOE - etc, they refer to the definition i have posted - not to your unorthodox definition.

You claim that your definition is a logical consequence of the TOE (my definition) and I'll express my rebuttal in the form of an example:

In religion R, it is believed that God created life and employed a natural mechanism described by the TOE to diversify it.

If you are correct that abiogenesis is a logical consequence of the TOE, then the above statement must be self-contradictory. Please show how that is the case.

Johnny
March 16th, 2006, 11:22 AM
Bob, is it possible that abiogenesis could be FALSE and evolution by natural seleciton be TRUE? If not, why not?

avatar382
March 16th, 2006, 11:28 AM
Bob, is it possible that abiogenesis could be FALSE and evolution by natural seleciton be TRUE? If not, why not?

What's funny is that YEC's often admit the answer is "yes" by distinguishing "microevolution" from "macroevolution" :chuckle:

bob b
March 16th, 2006, 11:36 AM
What's funny is that YEC's often admit the answer is "yes" by distinguishing "microevolution" from "macroevolution" :chuckle:

Yes, microevolution is true, but it really would be better described as either horizontal or downhill (devolution).

You see, mutations are deleterious: they remove functions, as in sicklecell anemia.

noguru
March 17th, 2006, 01:28 AM
Yes, microevolution is true, but it really would be better described as either horizontal or downhill (devolution).

You see, mutations are deleterious: they remove functions, as in sicklecell anemia.

Actually sickle cell anemia adds the function of resistance to malaria.

avatar382
March 17th, 2006, 09:23 AM
Hey Bob - still waiting on answers to these, just so you know :)


You claim that your definition is a logical consequence of the TOE (my definition) and I'll express my rebuttal in the form of an example:

In religion R, it is believed that God created life and employed a natural mechanism described by the TOE to diversify it.

If you are correct that abiogenesis is a logical consequence of the TOE, then the above statement must be self-contradictory. Please show how that is the case.


Bob, is it possible that abiogenesis could be FALSE and evolution by natural seleciton be TRUE? If not, why not?

bob b
March 17th, 2006, 10:44 AM
Hey Bob - still waiting on answers to these, just so you know :)

1) In religion R, it is believed that God created life and employed a natural mechanism described by the TOE to diversify it.

Many Christians believe this. Leading evolutionists do not. A poll published in Nature magazine showed that those biologists who belong to the most prestigous US scientific society, namely The National Academy of Sciences, overwhelmingly reject God (something like 90+% as I recall)

Incidentally, the ToE specifies "random mutation plus natural selection" as the mechanism and a "replicating molecule" as the starting point.

In contrast, the Christian creationist paradigm specifies the starting point as "multiple types" and the primary diversification mechanism to be sexual recombination, or in asexual creatures, probably horizontal gene transfer.

Note that both paradigms assume diversification (some more, some less), a point which escapes many Christians trying to reconcile evolutionary theory with the Bible.


If you are correct that abiogenesis is a logical consequence of the TOE, then the above statement must be self-contradictory. Please show how that is the case.

I have already stated my case. You still disagree. However, the argument against evolution does not hinge solely on this issue as you should know by now..


Bob, is it possible that abiogenesis could be FALSE and evolution by natural seleciton be TRUE? If not, why not?

My belief is that it is not possible for the simple reason that "random mutations plus natural selection" leads only to degradation, not the creation of new systems and subsystems.

Solid evidence against macroevolution of this type was presented in the WEASEL thread, with the final capstone of that thread being the "Protein Folding Problem".

Incidentally this is the type of evidence underlying the inference of Intelligent Design, a scientific and non-religious argument..