evolution

My very first post......

Arguing Creationism Vs Evolution with a creationist is like playing table tennis against a wall. Eventually you'll loose. Not because the wall is better at table tennis than you simply because its a wall.

To clarify it has never nor will never be a "debate" because anyone who calls themselves a Scientist by their very nature can admit that perhaps they're wrong. Where as anyone on the other side of this particular fence knows already that they are unquestionably right. Therefore there is no point to the argument.

Anyway just an opinion on arguing this point, since I've done it with many people and have at this point quite simply given up. However I have been reading these boards instead of working and felt an insuppressible urge to express an opinion....

All that said there is simply no way at all that this planet formed in a period of time shorter than several billion years.... It's quite simply not possible. Correct me if Im wrong but last time I checked Creationism stated it was something in the region of 15'000 years.... Which is slightly on the wrong side of ridiculous.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Um, we [b]have observed evolution happening, and we do have an almost continuous record of the evolution of mammals. You seem to be falling for the hackneyed creationist lies. Funnily enough, I wonder what their God thinks of them lying.[/b]

that is not a creationist lie, that is darwin himself.

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
that is not a creationist lie, that is darwin himself.

Darwin's views were of course incomplete since he knew nothing of genetics. Our knowledge of evolution is far more developed than his simply by the good luck that we live 150 years after him.
Darwin is not some god, despite what the creationists and fundamentalists might suggest. He's recognised as a powerful thinker and respected as an accomplished scientist - much like Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Bohr, and many others.

=====================================

I answered. Why didn't you move on or advance your argument?
=======================================

I believe that living forms change.

The questions I have are concerning how much of that change can account for everything we see today as life forms.

Can the change account for the existence of non living things into living things? I know what the standard response is - "That has nothing to do with Evolution. That has to do with the origin of life problem."


Okay, but it has to do with the search for the truth. I have seen many tree structured diagrams showing the relationships of descent between major species. But when I enquire about the trunk of the tree I get the response "You don't understand evolution. That is an origin of life problem that has nothing to do with evolution."

Okay. But it has to do with the search for the truth. Supposedly, we're interested in what the truth is.

"How did the mechanism get started?" seems to be an important aspect in the search for truth which is not allowed to enter into the debate on what an evolutionary process is responsible for.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=====================================

I answered. Why didn't you move on or advance your argument?
=======================================

I believe that living forms change.

The questions I have are concerning how much of that change can account for everything we see today as life forms.

Can the change account for ...[text shortened]... ot allowed to enter into the debate on what an evolutionary process is responsible for.[/b]

Of course the origin of life is an interesting and important question for science, but it seems to be used quite frequently as an excuse for rejecting evolution. That's why some of us here jump on it as not being a part of evolutionary theory, since of course, it isn't.
But, you're right, it is an important aspect of studies of life on this planet and should be vigorously pursued. Which, I should say, it is in the scientific community and with some success.
The problem in suggesting that we can tentatively explain the origin of life is that we hit an ideological wall. If life's origin can be explained naturally then there's a pretty major disconnect with some christians. And so, they reject any notion that it can be explained naturally, and ridicule any current work or models that attempt to explain life's origin.

Originally posted by jaywill
I believe that living forms change.

The questions I have are concerning how much of that change can account for everything we see today as life forms.

Do you believe in the story of Noah? Do you believe that all living animals you see today are descended from the animals on the ark? Do you realize the implications about the massive amount of change in a very short time period that would imply?

What are your actual concerns with regards to that change accounting for the life forms we see today? Is it just abiogenesis you don't like or is there more?

==========================
Of course the origin of life is an interesting and important question for science,
================================

The origin of life is an important issue to humanity period. It is not just important to science. It is important to human beings.

Where did we come from? It touches on the realm of spirituality. That is why you will always find the topic rehashed on boards supposedly dedicated to spirituality.

And by "spirituality" I don't mean only Christian theology. Where we came from is an important thing people want to know.

==============================================
but it seems to be used quite frequently as an excuse for rejecting evolution.
=========================================

The blame for some of that you could place at the feet of evolutionists themselves. Don't you think so?

Some of that is the reaction to ideas of evolutionists themselves.

================================
That's why some of us here jump on it as not being a part of evolutionary theory, since of course, it isn't.
==================================


My belief is that the reason it isn't is because some evolutionists realized the difficulty of including origins under the theory.

I am liable to react skeptically to a portrayal of evolution as benigh and indifferent towards the hope that their theory could explain how the simpliest life forms came about.

The strong concerted effort of late is to distance the two subjects from one another. I do not believe that this was always the case. And I am over 50 years old and remember from childhood presentations of the theory which included origin of life talk.


=====================================

But, you're right, it is an important aspect of studies of life on this planet and should be vigorously pursued. Which, I should say, it is in the scientific community and with some success.

==============================

I'm happy to hear that, as long as your definition of "scientific community" embraces scientists with other views besides those you favor.

====================================
The problem in suggesting that we can tentatively explain the origin of life is that we hit an ideological wall.
=======================================

Is it really only an ideological wall ?

Maybe it is a wall of another sort. Maybe it is outside the ability of science research. Could that also be the wall, the limitation?


=============================

If life's origin can be explained naturally then there's a pretty major disconnect with some christians.

==============================

Would that "disconnect" be limited to only Christians?

Anthony Flew is no Christian (rather a former renown atheist author) . And he seems to have decided that there must be a Creator.

Say a little something about it being somewhat of a possible philosophical disconnect or even a common sense disconnect.

What we have seen for millennia is that life is derived from life. We have not seen non-life give rise to life.

So I wonder if any proposed "disconnect" is solely the problem of Christian biblicists.


=======================================
And so, they reject any notion that it can be explained naturally, and ridicule any current work or models that attempt to explain life's origin.
=================================


Well, there's probably enough "ridicule" to go around. If you haven't noticed (your tone seems cordial enough), stick around.

You'll notice a ample amount of "ridicule" from those who consider a non-naturalistic explanation of life's origin as the stuff of fools and fairy tales.

For example, I read Michaekl Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box - the Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" Behe believes in common origin life source but he is not a Creationist of the Young Earth type.

I could not believe the amount of ridicule I read on the Internet in reaction to that book. I just could not believe it. I could not believe that number of people who apparently seemed NOT to have read one page of it, yet were ready to dismiss it as junk.

The more serious rebuttals I had some respect for. But the amount of ridicule to me exposed the entrenched bias of some people wanting me to think that they're purely objective. I think it was a reaction of fear perhaps.

You sound like someone I could talk to about some of these issues.

Originally posted by jaywill
What we have seen for millennia is that life is derived from life. We have not seen non-life give rise to life.

But we do not know whether or not it has happened. You have not seen the far side of the moon, but that does not mean it is not there. We do not know how often life arises on earth or on other planets. We can at best make an estimate. Don't forget that the life we know of started as single celled life or simpler and took millions of years to progress further. It is quite possible that many many other life forms also emerged and got as far as single celled life or simpler then either died out, or persisted in a place we have not yet looked. We have only looked at and categorized a tiny tiny proportion of the various species of single celled life, we cant possibly rule out the possibility that there are no other life forms on the planet.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Everything ammanion said right there I learned at Universityin Scotland. The human family tree is well documented, and well supported, as is the deeper evolution of animals.

Now, the people who came up with this all have PhD's, as do I (and a MSc and a BSc), what are YOUR qualifications to say it isn't true? How much original research have you done ...[text shortened]... pic? By the way, what you read on "answersingenesis" doesn't qualify as original research.

"Answeringenisis"? Never heard of it.

No, I don't have a PHD in anything. But that doesn't mean I'm not informed. And a PHD doesn't guarantee one is right. As a matter of fact I think having a PHD only qualifies one for more money.

You can have your PHD. I'll take the truth.

The truth is..."In the beginning God created..."

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]==========================
Of course the origin of life is an interesting and important question for science,
================================

The origin of life is an important issue to humanity period. It is not just important to science. It is important to human beings.

Where did we come from? It touches on the realm of spirituality ...[text shortened]... ou sound like someone I could talk to about some of these issues.[/b]

I'm not so sure about the importance you place on the issue. I find it an intellectually interesting topic but I'm pretty sure a quick straw poll of my friends and relatives would likely uncover very few of them who would think this issue more important than the million and one things that have a direct import on their lives.

Evolution really is a statement about the nature of change over time in living things - so it requires that there be living things, period. This isn't a difficulty with science, rather it's the nature of the compartmentalisation of science that has occurred over the past few hundred years. Evolutionary biologists study evolution. Evolution requires living things. That's it. The origin is irrelevant. The living things could be here by divine creation or by natural processes or whatever - it doesn't matter, for the evolutionary perspective that is.

I'm not quite that old - I hit 40 this year - but I can never recall any of my studies in science that linked the two. Mind you, I was always intrigued by the origin question and of course it seems like a natural next step from evolution but I think you overplay this notion of a 'concerted effort' to distance the two.

I don't see how the origin question is beyond the scope of science. I don't think there's too many things at all that aren't beyond the scopr of scientific study - which isn't to say that we can easily uncover answers or explanations to everything of course.

As a raving atheist myself, I must say I'm a bit skeptical when people tell me about former atheists who've 'seen the light' or something like it. What the hell would convince an atheist that some sort of creator exists? What sort of evidence have they seen?

I mentioned Christianity explicitly because it seems mostly the fundamentalist and literalist christians that have a problem with evolution. I haven't encountered many people from other faiths who have taken to the issue in quite the manner of (some) christians.

As for life from non-life as being a common sense issue, I don't see that. Just because we haven't seen something or haven't seen something occur isn't reason to denounce an idea. If it was people would've been mocking Dalton and Thompson and Rutherford and Bohr, all of whom died before there was any visual proof of the existence of their atoms.
I think it's more along the lines of the ET problem. This goes something like this: I can't believe that we could be the only intelligent beings in the universe, it's just too big, there must be others. And since there must be, there is.
You're arguing something similar: I can't believe that life could arise from non-life through some sort of natural process, therefore it can't.

Finally, don't get me wrong, I'm as able to ridicule with the best of them - just ask KellyJ or JosephW.
But I also recognise that not everyone things as I do, and that the diversity of our views makes for an interesting world and an interesting ife.
So, I say, bring it on ...

Originally posted by josephw
"Answeringenisis"? Never heard of it.

No, I don't have a PHD in anything. But that doesn't mean I'm not informed. And a PHD doesn't guarantee one is right. As a matter of fact I think having a PHD only qualifies one for more money.

You can have your PHD. I'll take the truth.

The truth is..."In the beginning God created..."

The fact that you cannot even get the acronym right would seem to be a problem.

A PhD shows that you have done a degree of advanced study in a subject (in my case biology). It shows that you are capable of doing independent research, and are capable of utilizing logic to develop ideas and suitable ways to test them.

It doesn't mean you are infallible - no one said it does; however, it's a whole lot more likely that someone with a degree or two (or three) in a subject knows what they are talking about than someone who has never completed any formal study in the area.