Originally posted by jaywill [b]+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A theory always has limitations. Evolution is a nice example. Its limitations?
It only works if life already exists.
So, it fails to explain the origin of life you cry.
Of course it does. That's beyond its limits.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It wasn't ALWAYS THAT WAY BABY !!
When they realized that it ...[text shortened]... ordal soup bit kicking off Evolution.
Shhhhhhh! Let's not talk about that anymore.[/b]
But religion has no limitations! It explains everything perfectly...
Originally posted by jaywill Scottis informs us that life is nothing special.
And brilliant theorist Stephen Hawking suggested that a computer virus was a life form.
How many of you out there think that a Computer Virus is a [b]life form ?[/b]
I'd say it's close to it, about as close as real viruses, which are a bit of a grey area. I do believe that within our lifetimes we'll see artificial life. a lot of people do actually, but of course it'll be very hard to prove or disprove either way without a decent definition of life. The list of criteria listed earlier is the generally accepted list, but there's a few such lists and it's all very tough to pin down.
Ultimately it'll be a matter of opinion, but I wouldn't like to be the first artificial consciousness looking around wondering why no one believes me when I say I live. That'd kinda p#ss me off. Not something I want the first AI to be.
Originally posted by epiphinehas Good point. Why then isn't evolution supposed to be compatible with the creation story in the bible? As long as I've been a believer I've never understood the friction between the two.
In the Bible, plants are created before the Sun. This is not how evolutionary theory explains the origin of plants. In evolutionary theory all life came well after the Sun.
Originally posted by jaywill [b]++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Life is nothing special, it's just the fulfilment of a bunch of rather arbitrary criteria.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
For not being special it sure is rather scarce given to full size of the known universe.
Okay, Okay, the known Solar System. Not too much of life around for being nothing particulary special.
You can't make it.[/b]
I can't make it. So what? Give me a lifespan of 4500 million years and a billion chances a day (and a reducing atmosphere) and I will.
Originally posted by scottishinnz I can't make it. So what? Give me a lifespan of 4500 million years and a billion chances a day (and a reducing atmosphere) and I will.
Originally posted by princeoforange Can you make it in six days babyface?
Six days vs. 13.7 billion years...
It's obvious which one is more powerful.
Plus, what does evolution ever say about life after death?
Or our purpose in life?
Or does it just explain the fact that, all living things have changed in response to environmental conditions by natural selection of randomly occurring mutations developing from simpler to more complex organisms which are stronger due to those mutations (which contradicts entropy) (and the nature of mutations [usually mutations in this world are detrimental])?
You are free to shoot me the problems about those statements if I am wrong on any of those counts.
Originally posted by EinsteinMind Six days vs. 13.7 billion years...
It's obvious which one is more powerful.
Plus, what does evolution ever say about life after death?
Or our purpose in life?
Or does it just explain the fact that, all living things have changed in response to environmental conditions by natural selection of randomly occurring mutations developing from simpl ...[text shortened]... are free to shoot me the problems about those statements if I am wrong on any of those counts.
Life after death?
Isn't that an oxymoron?
Purpose in life?
I'm not sure there's any scientific theory that can help you there. Why do you think life requires any purpose?
Entropy contradictions? Hardly. Input energy into any system and you can decrease entropy. Life gets inputs of energy all the time. The donut I had earlier is doing just that for me right now.
Usually mutations are detrimental. So what? The key word is usually. Occasionally, very rarely a beneficial mutation can occur. Given that our cells are dividing and reproducing many millions of times, it doesn't take that long for beneficial mutations to occur.
Originally posted by amannion Life after death?
Isn't that an oxymoron?
Purpose in life?
I'm not sure there's any scientific theory that can help you there. Why do you think life requires any purpose?
Entropy contradictions? Hardly. Input energy into any system and you can decrease entropy. Life gets inputs of energy all the time. The donut I had earlier is doing just that for m ...[text shortened]... oducing many millions of times, it doesn't take that long for beneficial mutations to occur.
Yes but how often is that? often enough to disprove that part of the theory. Mutations as we see them are for the most part not beneficial.
ANd we need a purpose. If we have no purpose, then what are we living for? This is the reason for so many suicides is because people see themselves having no purpose or goals, they are only focused on their own happiness, their happiness in the here and now. THey need to realize that they have something to live for. Sceince can't give them that.
Originally posted by EinsteinMind Yes but how often is that? often enough to disprove that part of the theory. Mutations as we see them are [b]for the most part not beneficial.
ANd we need a purpose. If we have no purpose, then what are we living for? This is the reason for so many suicides is because people see themselves having no purpose or goals, they are only focused on thei ...[text shortened]... to live for. Sceince can't give them that.
So what does evolution say happens after we die?[/b]
Evolution says nothing about after death. It doesn't need to. When you die you cease to exist.
You may desire a purpose but you don't need one. Suicide is not about having no purpose. It's about pain and depression and seeing death as the best of a crappy bunch of alternatives.
For myself, might I add, I have a purpose in life that I give myself. I don't need anyone or anything to give me that purpose, since I know that life doesn't come with any sort of default purpose. You've got to generate your own if you want one.
Not sure what you're trying to say about mutations. Yes, most mutations are not beneficial. So what? The very small number that are contribute to speciation and evolution.
I don't think the comparison of the Theory of Evolution with the General Theory of Relativity is appropriate.
The Theory of Evolution is really a theory about History. It is a idea concerning what happened in the history of life.
What little I know about General Relativity, I don't think, compares to Evolution as a theory about a historical process. Relativity is just about static relationships of space, time, mass, etc. without regard to the history of the development of the universe.
Originally posted by jaywill I don't think the comparison of the Theory of Evolution with the General Theory of Relativity is appropriate.
The Theory of Evolution is really a theory about History. It is a idea concerning what happened in the history of life.
What little I know about General Relativity, I don't think, compares to Evolution as a theory about a historical proces ...[text shortened]... s of space, time, mass, etc. without regard to the history of the development of the universe.
Perhaps, but my point was that any scientific theory - whether historical in nature or not - aims to provide an explanation for certain phenomena. To try to use any theory to explain other phenomena is usually not appropriate.
Certainly this is the case for the origin of life which has no bearing or relationship to evolution.
Now of course you need life before you can get it to evolve, but Darwin, and his successors either avoided considering the notion or tried with mixed success to examine it.
Originally posted by jaywill What little I know about General Relativity, I don't think, compares to Evolution as a theory about a historical process. Relativity is just about static relationships of space, time, mass, etc. without regard to the history of the development of the universe.
And what do you think the Big Bang theory is based on? What about the whole field of astronomy? (All starlight is historical often millions of years old). In facts since 'Relativity' is all about how 'time is relative' it can hardly be talking about anything other than history for all but the observer!
The Theory of Evolution is not just about the past and where present life came from. It is also about what is happening today and is a centre piece of modern Biology. That is why creationists have been forced to accept that it is an ongoing process and so try really hard to separate the ongoing process from the past.
Its like you are saying that you can study relativity by looking at the positions of the planets or other objects but not looking at where they came from ie no motion.
Originally posted by scottishinnz I can't make it. So what? Give me a lifespan of 4500 million years and a billion chances a day (and a reducing atmosphere) and I will.
This dude managed to make nucleic acid in much less time...
I wonder if anyone's made vesicles with nucleic acids in the solution? Throw in some NTPs and let it sit and I don't see why life might not come into being...obviously a lot of experimentation would need to be done.
Evolutions' fatal flaw.
25 Jun '07 17:56
YouTube
Back to Top