|
|
|
BlueCollarScientist
New Member
23 Posts |
 Posted - 02/15/2008 : 04:32:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by andrew19
How can the "simplest" life form, for example: A bacteria, evolve? |
The straightforward answer is: according to evolutionary biologists, it evolves through the accumulation of variation in its genes over generations. The same way everything else evolves.
If you mean, "how did the simplest life form, a bacteria, come to exist," and I suspect that is what you mean, as others do as well, then... how does one put this delicately?
This kind of confusion is an indication that you know very little about what evolutionary biologists actually think about evolution. Real knowledge brings us the ability to ask coherent, meaningful questions, especially about subjects we are skeptical of. A superficial familiarity with a subject, especially when that familiarity has been provided by those fighting against it, is pretty useless when grappling with complex issues like these.
| from what i have been taught(in high school mind you) a bacteria needs all of its parts to survive. And to my knowledge there is NO evidence to suggest that the functions provided in bacteria today have been preformed by a different organelles? Am i wrong? |
Again, I think you are very confused. The vast majority of bacteria contain no organelles whatsoever. Certainly the "simplest" several million species of bacteria lack organelles of any description. Bacteria are generalists, carrying out all of their functions without the benefit of specialized structures - they don't even have a nucleus.
So what in the blazes do you mean by asking "am I wrong: there is no evidence that functions provided in bacteria today have been performed by different organelles," when bacteria don't have organelles? The question betrays a deep ignorance of fundamental knowledge about biology, and again it looks like you have no real idea of what evolution is - of what actual evolutionary biologists believe.
If you are asking where bacteria got all those functions that allow them to live, and are pointing out that there are no proto-bacteria with specialized, organelle-like functions around that could somehow come together and combine their capabilities to form the first bacterium, well, again, I think you are confused. Evolutionary biologists do not believe that bacteria evolved from highly specialized proto-organelle-like ancestors. And neither do creationists, I gather. So there's no point discussing this, if that is what you meant.
| Godidit'ing only with evolution. |
The difference is that in science, they look at what they think they know about our world, and they make some logical, educated guesses about what they should find if their knowledge is correct. They also recognize that there are certain things that, if their knowledge is correct, can't possibly be found even if they go looking for them.
Then - and this is how they find so much stuff out - they go looking for the things on their lists, especially the "shouldn't be found" list. Sometimes the results of this search help confirm what they believed, but more often it shows them where they've been wrong. When this happens, scientists publish papers in peer-reviewed journals pointing out each others' errors, and more rarely each others' successes. A lot of careers have been made by showing that the old, white haired people in science were wrong, or at least didn't have nearly the whole story.
Unlike science, creationism has made no contribution to human knowledge that I'm aware of. They have no methodology or technique for finding out if their beliefs are true or false, and they tend to assume that the state of knowledge will never change. "Answers in Genesis" did just that for the bat fossil that was recently found. If I may be forgiven for linking to my own blog, you might want to check this out - it is about some of the predictions evolutionary biologists made about bat evolution and what would be found in bat fossils of a certain age, which turned out to be true when this bat fossil was found; whereas creationists falsely claim that bat fossils contradict evolution. This is just one example of a dozen that have come up in the last three weeks that have falsified creationist claims about evolution.
|
http://bluecollarscientist.com/ |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2008 : 14:15:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by andrew19
First of all, after reading all of the responses to my question, Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy is arguably one of the best movies of all time. |
Well, I'll argue that you are wrong on that account. The original story, the book, is one of the greatest books of modern times, but the movie left much to be desired compared to the book.
Having said that...:
Welcome Andrew, to Skeptic Friends Network!
Edited to add:
Dave mentioned the original Radio show broadcast. Growing up in a non-English speaking country, I never had the opportunity to hear the original broadcast. The Swedish translation of the book Hitchhiker's (which was written after the radio show) by Douglas Adams was my first introduction. There's also the BBC TV mini-series. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 02/15/2008 14:38:36 |
|
|
|
andrew19
New Member
USA
16 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2008 : 14:58:20 [Permalink]
|
| Well, i would defiantly say that i don't think that saying that God did something is wrong per say. There are things that even science cannot explain. Therefor shouldn't that make science be a little less adverse to the Idea of intelligent influence in creation???? Now to try and use God as your own personal crutch anytime someone brings up something you cant explain, then there is a problem. And in my opinion i think that evolutionists are a little guilty of this at times themselves. Only what they do is come up with a "theory" as to how this problem might have been solved through nature. I looked for some info on the life from soup experiments and found it quite odd. How does Gunter Wachterhauser, the scientist responsible for the experiment i found, monitoring, controlling, and guiding the development of these few amino acids, support the idea of life developing through time and evolutionary process?? Id like to here your opinions on this matter. God bless |
|
|
|
andrew19
New Member
USA
16 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2008 : 15:28:06 [Permalink]
|
| I do apologize also for the questions and statements put forth by myself if they are ignorant or misinformed. The purpose of asking them is simply to "pick the brains" of the seemingly intelligent members of this site ;) My curiosity and desire for knowledge on this subject has led me to spend much of my free time over the past few months in cruising the internet in search of information, as well as the bible which I base most of my life on. I will say that i appreciate the links some of you provide. I enjoy being able to see where you get your information. Thank you! Any ways God bless and have a good day :) |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2008 : 15:33:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by andrew19
Well, i would defiantly say that i don't think that saying that God did something is wrong per say. |
"Goddidit" can explain anything, and so therefore it offers no explanation at all as to why things are the way they are, and not some other way. If humans had wings, "Goddidit" would be a perfectly good "explanation." If humans had wings and other primates did not, then "evolution did it" fails to be a good explanation.| There are things that even science cannot explain. |
And that's an appeal to ignorance.| Therefor shouldn't that make science be a little less adverse to the Idea of intelligent influence in creation???? Now to try and use God as your own personal crutch anytime someone brings up something you cant explain, then there is a problem. |
But that's all that the Intelligent Design movement is: we can't explain it with science, therefore God did it. I'm glad you agree that's a problem.| And in my opinion i think that evolutionists are a little guilty of this at times themselves. Only what they do is come up with a "theory" as to how this problem might have been solved through nature. |
In science, there is nothing better than a theory, which is a highly verified explanation of observable phenomena. Sneering at theories is like saying, "that athlete just keeps getting 'gold medals' in the Olymipics."| I looked for some info on the life from soup experiments and found it quite odd. How does Gunter Wachterhauser, the scientist responsible for the experiment i found, monitoring, controlling, and guiding the development of these few amino acids, support the idea of life developing through time and evolutionary process?? |
Because it shows that some aspect of the process is plausible, which destroys the "impossible" claims of the creationists. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2008 : 15:38:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by andrew19
Therefor shouldn't that make science be a little less adverse to the Idea of intelligent influence in creation???? |
Scientists aren't adverse to the idea at all. They are 100% open to the idea. They're just waiting to be shown any compelling evidence. You, or anyone else, have not done so.
Of course, if what you really mean is why don't scientists think "goddidit" is a compelling explanation without such evidence, then ask yourself if you would accept that the entire Universe rests on the back of a giant turtle without any evidence to support such a premise. Remember, science cannot prove such an idea wrong. If your only criteria is that science should defer to religious explanations whenever they lack a confirmed scientific one, then it doesn't take a genius to figure out where such a lack of standards would lead.
| How does Gunter Wachterhauser, the scientist responsible for the experiment i found, monitoring, controlling, and guiding the development of these few amino acids, support the idea of life developing through time and evolutionary process?? Id like to here your opinions on this matter. |
Because it demonstrates possible natural pathways early life may have taken. Monitoring and controlling an experiment is not the same thing as predetermining the outcome of an experiment. If that were true, no experiment could ever tell us anything about the natural world. Think about the implications of your questions thoroughly before you ask them.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Risendemonx
New Member
USA
48 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2008 : 15:52:21 [Permalink]
|
Personally, if I could find valid evidence that Noah's flood happened, in a model which conforms to all avaliable existing evidence and even makes predictions about the world that the conventional existing theories cannot, I would jump on it as fast as I could. Any scientist who makes such a discovery would be made famous in the annals of history. Such a discovery would completely renovate science as we know it, heck- society as we know it! It would be the greatest discovery in think... ever!
The problem is, that no such model can be derived from existing observations. It can't be a question of motivation on the scientist's part- it's a question of the existing data and evidence in support of the claim
:-) |
"In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry, and is generally considered to have been a bad move."
--
Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2008 : 19:54:36 [Permalink]
|
Nova did a very good episode covering the recent Intelligent Design trial in Dover, PA. This includes a good amount of time spent explaining Richard Behe's concept of irreducible complexity and his testimony at the trial, as well as the counter arguments. The name of this episode if anyone wants to track it down is "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design On Trial".
My own response to the OP is this: Behe came to Ohio State when I was in college. At that time I had an opinion column for Ohio State's newspaper and wrote about Behe and his ideas. Since I hate repeating myself, and still agree with what I wrote then, here is the link:
And an excerpt: First of all, geneticist H. J. Muller predicted irreducible complexity at Behe's biochemical scale in terms of evolution in the early part of the 20th century. Muller explained that over time, genes, which would initially improve a function, would eventually become necessary to that function. After this process, the result would be an irreducibly complex system just as Behe describes.
Probably the most frequent criticism of Behe's hypothesis is that he deals poorly with the problem of duplicate genes. Several genes in certain systems that code for different parts are so similar they are considered to have earlier been one gene that was duplicated. Geneticists have actually studied gene duplication. Over time these unnecessary copies can potentially change just enough to take on another function, and DNA sequencing has revealed that it can take very little change for this to occur.
Behe admits that often genes look extremely similar but refuses to consider that they are duplicates, slightly modified over time. He claims the similarities are due to common descent from the intelligently designed primordial cell.
Another criticism of Behe's book is that he didn't do proper research. David Ussery, an associate research professor at the Technical University of Denmark, cites numerous false statements from Behe's book. For instance, Behe claimed that there existed only two scientific articles that outlined models for the evolution of the cilium in specific mechanical terms. Ussery did a quick PubMed search and found 107 such articles. Behe claimed that no scientist had published a model to account for the gradual evolution of flagella. Ussery found 125 such articles. |
I think it is also worth noting that I wrote that column in 2001, Behe published his ideas about irreducible complexity in his book "Darwin's Black Box" even before that, and yet at the trial last year Behe was saying the exact same things including using the same examples, some of which were proven false within a year of his publishing his book. The only reason he still has his job is because he came out with these ideas after getting tenure. He is a total embarrassment to his field.
[Edited to fix link - Dave W.] |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 02/15/2008 19:59:42 |
|
|
|
BlueCollarScientist
New Member
23 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2008 : 00:40:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
First of all, geneticist H. J. Muller predicted irreducible complexity at Behe's biochemical scale in terms of evolution in the early part of the 20th century. |
Ouch. So the best "evidence" the intelligent design creationists have is a decades-old prediction of the theory of evolution.
Marfknox is my newest favorite person for pointing this out. |
http://bluecollarscientist.com/ |
|
|
|
Maverick
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
385 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2008 : 01:41:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by andrew19
Well, i would defiantly say that i don't think that saying that God did something is wrong per say. |
Really? Doing so is not only admitting ignorance (which is an honest and good thing to do!) but also a transparent and obvious way to claim that making vague stuff up from nowhere is a good way to explain things. It is not.
| There are things that even science cannot explain. |
Not now or not ever?
| Therefor shouldn't that make science be a little less adverse to the Idea of intelligent influence in creation???? |
But why should they just say ok we don't know, so let's not look further into it and just say some magical entity did it. That's not how it should be.
| Now to try and use God as your own personal crutch anytime someone brings up something you cant explain, then there is a problem. And in my opinion i think that evolutionists are a little guilty of this at times themselves. Only what they do is come up with a "theory" as to how this problem might have been solved through nature. |
Are you saying that scientists just sit around inventing fictional stuff, just like everyone who has ever invented a religion? |
"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." -- Carl Sagan |
| Edited by - Maverick on 02/16/2008 01:41:45 |
|
|
|
BlueCollarScientist
New Member
23 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2008 : 04:29:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by andrew19
There are things that even science cannot explain. |
There are things that even Christianity hasn't explained. Shrug.
| ....Only what they do is come up with a "theory" as to how this problem might have been solved through nature. |
....Only what creationists do is come up with some "theory" as to how this thing might have been done by some god or space alien or something.
| How does Gunter Wachterhauser, the scientist responsible for the experiment i found, monitoring, controlling, and guiding the development of these few amino acids, support the idea of life developing through time and evolutionary process?? |
Did Günter Wächtershäuser actually conduct an experiment that produced amino acids as you imply? I thought he was a theorist, and I know he designed and proposed some experiments to test his hypotheses, but I was under the impression he didn't actually carry them out himself.
Anyway, I am familiar with experiments that have produced amino acids, and describing them that way is bearing false witness. The experimenters did not 'control' or 'guide' the development of amino acids. They wanted to see whether or not amino acids would form under certain physical conditions, so they set those physical conditions up and watched what happened. The amino acids formed themselves.
The experimenter did not reach in there and assemble the molecules. And neither did they report that god's arm appeared through a dimensional hole in the laboratory ceiling with a tiny tweezers in his hands to do the same. |
http://bluecollarscientist.com/ |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2008 : 05:22:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Nova did a very good episode covering the recent Intelligent Design trial in Dover, PA. This includes a good amount of time spent explaining Richard Behe's concept of irreducible complexity and his testimony at the trial, as well as the counter arguments. The name of this episode if anyone wants to track it down is "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design On Trial".
My own response to the OP is this: Behe came to Ohio State when I was in college. At that time I had an opinion column for Ohio State's newspaper and wrote about Behe and his ideas. Since I hate repeating myself, and still agree with what I wrote then, here is the link:
And an excerpt: First of all, geneticist H. J. Muller predicted irreducible complexity at Behe's biochemical scale in terms of evolution in the early part of the 20th century. Muller explained that over time, genes, which would initially improve a function, would eventually become necessary to that function. After this process, the result would be an irreducibly complex system just as Behe describes.
Probably the most frequent criticism of Behe's hypothesis is that he deals poorly with the problem of duplicate genes. Several genes in certain systems that code for different parts are so similar they are considered to have earlier been one gene that was duplicated. Geneticists have actually studied gene duplication. Over time these unnecessary copies can potentially change just enough to take on another function, and DNA sequencing has revealed that it can take very little change for this to occur.
Behe admits that often genes look extremely similar but refuses to consider that they are duplicates, slightly modified over time. He claims the similarities are due to common descent from the intelligently designed primordial cell.
Another criticism of Behe's book is that he didn't do proper research. David Ussery, an associate research professor at the Technical University of Denmark, cites numerous false statements from Behe's book. For instance, Behe claimed that there existed only two scientific articles that outlined models for the evolution of the cilium in specific mechanical terms. Ussery did a quick PubMed search and found 107 such articles. Behe claimed that no scientist had published a model to account for the gradual evolution of flagella. Ussery found 125 such articles. |
I think it is also worth noting that I wrote that column in 2001, Behe published his ideas about irreducible complexity in his book "Darwin's Black Box" even before that, and yet at the trial last year Behe was saying the exact same things including using the same examples, some of which were proven false within a year of his publishing his book. The only reason he still has his job is because he came out with these ideas after getting tenure. He is a total embarrassment to his field.
[Edited to fix link - Dave W.]
|
Beautiful! I learn more every day.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2008 : 05:36:22 [Permalink]
|
andrew19, I do appreciate your politeness in your posts, and your expressed openness to ideas. However, it's also clear that you have fundamentalist preconceptions that may conflict with a scientific understanding, and that you aren't working too hard to consider or study the information others have given you.
For instance, you posted an argument from incredulity after I had made a post which included links to Wiki about that (and other) logical fallacies. I know I spent almost an an hour and a half writing that post, then inserting the links, all just to help inform you and add to your critical thinking armamentarium. Others have clearly spent considerable time doing the same. Please go back and read those posts, and their links!
We're trying to work with you here, but this requires efforts on both sides.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
andrew19
New Member
USA
16 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2008 : 11:26:16 [Permalink]
|
| Thank you guys for your inputs. I greatly appreciate the time some of you guys put into your answers to my questions. My exposure to intelligent evolutionists has been VERY lacking. Most of the guys i talk to and derive my questions from, are of the variety that do believe monkeys are proof of evolution and that science has answered every possible question involved with the debate(even though they couldn't give a single example). So please forgive any misconceptions I have due to their lack of understanding of the theory they claim to understand. But any ways I hope this doesn't anger any one but I don't think science could even begin to "prove" that God exists or doesn't. Christians should tell you that God is beyond understanding. Not that the bible will answer every scientific question you can ask. I was shocked when a good friend of mine didn't even know that the old testament said that slavery was ok. Mind you there are around 20 verses that deal with the way you treat slaves. If you would like them id be happy to provide them. The bible says how to treat slaves taken from among other nations, as well as the Hebrews own nation. I guess the main point is that a lot of people on both sides of the ideological fence are ignorant of their own beliefs as well as the beliefs of their neighbor's. Any ways God bless and have a good day guys. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2008 : 13:14:04 [Permalink]
|
| Thank you guys for your inputs. I greatly appreciate the time some of you guys put into your answers to my questions. |
That certainly doesn't seem to be the case, seeing as how you never actually respond to them.
| But any ways I hope this doesn't anger any one but I don't think science could even begin to "prove" that God exists or doesn't. |
By most definitions of the word, "god" is beyond the universe, and thus, beyond science. However, unicorns in a parallel dimension that drive SUVs which were excreted from some animal as a waste byproduct are also beyond science.
| Christians should tell you that God is beyond understanding. |
What better way to keep your god safe? First, gods were at the tops of mountains and the bottoms of lakes. We went to the tops and to the bottoms, and found no gods. Then, gods were in the sky and the heaven. We looked, and we looked, but found no gods. Now, God is outside of our universe, outside of understanding. Go figure.
| I was shocked when a good friend of mine didn't even know that the old testament said that slavery was ok. Mind you there are around 20 verses that deal with the way you treat slaves. If you would like them id be happy to provide them. The bible says how to treat slaves taken from among other nations, as well as the Hebrews own nation. I guess the main point is that a lot of people on both sides of the ideological fence are ignorant of their own beliefs as well as the beliefs of their neighbor's. |
| Out of ALL of the stuff i have read on this and many other forums, no one has ever addressed irreducible complexity among organisms. I would like to know the current theories/beliefs in respect to this. |
I must say, you lose interest in a topic rather quickly.
|
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
| Edited by - Ricky on 02/16/2008 13:15:00 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Conservative Christian :D
