Creation vs. Evolution

[gary-ramey]

A recurring theme in antievolution literature is that if science cannot account for the origin of life, evolution is false, that's not the case ... there's no linkage, except in the minds of the creationists.

If you take evolution to its logical beginning, you can't help but extrapolate it out to the abiogenesis point.

 

[Warthaug]

Sure it is. Evolution in its purest sense believes that life began in a primortal ooze.

No, it does not. Evolutionary theory deals exclusively with how life changes. Evolution cares not about how life formed - that is the science of abiogenesis. Completely different theories, with completely different data sets.

Life could have arisen from non-life, been brought here by aliens, and yes, made by god, and evolution wouldn't care. So long as that life changes and adapts in the way evolution predicts, evolution holds true.

Its a nice fairy tale. But in order for that life to start, several impossibilities need to take place...ie the random formation of a protein molecule.

This is hardly impossible. We knew as far back as the 1970's that all you need to do is mix some RNA nucleotides together (which exist naturally, BTW) and you get self-replicating molecules, which is the foundation of abiogenesis. From there you get complex reproducing systems, metacycles, protobionts, and finally life.

Not one of those steps (or the intermediary steps I left out) violates any known physical or chemical law, they are based on the experimental evidence to date, and are known to be statistically probable.

Of course, you've fallen for the classical "the chance of the DNA of a living organism arising randomly is 1:1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000).

Then it has to bind with others before the forces that brought it together, rip it apart again.

Are you aware of equilibrium chemistry? Of course there is a continual process of building and breakdown; that very pattern is the basis of every molicule in our universe. But so long as formation exceeds degradation you'll have a trend towards larger, more complex molecules.

In the case of the three molecules thought most likely to have been the starting form for life (RNA, aminoacids, and nucleoamides), the process of hydration (i.e. formation of longer chains) is energetically favored over dehydration (the breakdown of chains). As a consiquence, when placed in solution these molecules will spontaneously form long chains. Not only that, but they'll spontaneously form biologically active molecules, with a range of activities from endonucleases, to proteases, to polymerases, to <insert biological activity here>.

In plain English, the above means that there are a range of commonly found compounds in our universe which:
1) Spontaneously form into long chains,
2) Are stable enough to be sustained for long periods of time
3) Take on biological activities when formed into chains.


Bryan

 

[Thalassamania]

Very simply put, photos were sent back of recent activity on the moons of Jupiter. Due to their location, temperature etc it was a widely held belief that these moons were dead...much like our own. I've not heard an adequate explanation of why. So I can only assume they're younger than we thought.

Hell hath no fury as an unwarranted assumption.

 

[gary-ramey]

I have kids, I understand the concept and I think the concept is crap.

Really. So the kids never exhibited a bad behavior that wasn't taught?

 

[Warthaug]

The only problem you have is the known universe is measurable and is dying.

Everything decays, fact of life. That our universe follows those same lays should be of no surprise. I don't see how its a problem.

Modern cosmology predicts two possible outcomes for our universe:
1) A "death" by entropy; basically the universe expands forever, and over time all usable energy is consumed.
2) A "big crunch death", where the mass of the universe eventually causes it to contract, resulting in the formation of another singularity.

At this point we don't have enough info to tell which is occurring. There isn't enough visible mass (i.e. stars) to allow for #2, but there may be enough dark matter (planets & other not-easy-to-see mass) to allow for #2.

So either it is perpetual in some way that defies the Laws of Thermodynamics, or it is not eternal.

Or none of the above. There are many hypothesis as to where our universe came from, and what the nature of the "pre-universe" is/was. Today we do not know which hypothesis (if any) is true, but it is a matter of great interest which hopefully will one day have an answer.


Bryan

 

[Thalassamania]

That should not have been surprising. Clearly, when one takes his/her ultimate authority from the Bible, then the answer to the question posed is exactly the one that he gave, i.e. that God has always existed, and hence does not need a cause.

How is that any different than saying the universe always existed? The idea that the universe must have had a creator is a tautology religionists try to use to prove th existence of a god. So where did god come from? You can't have it both ways.

 

[Warthaug]

If you take evolution to its logical beginning, you can't help but extrapolate it out to the abiogenesis point.

Science isn't about extrapolation, its about facts. And the fact is that evolution is about how life changes - period, end of story, don't pass go; don't collect $200. Evolution was originally defined, BY DARWIN, as a theory which explains the diversity of life (hence why the book is "origin of species", not "origin of life"). Both he, and all successive evolutionary scientists, have maintained that distinction.

The study of evolution and the study of abiogenesis are radically different. And you can have one without the other - if our ideas about abiogenesis are wrong, it doesn't change that life evolves. The converse is also true - should evolution be shown to be false, it changes nothing that we know of abiogenesis.

All the wishing of you, and the other creationists, doesn't change that.


Bryan

 

[gary-ramey]

1) Laws are the weakest form of scientific knowledge, as they are nothing more than a description of a phenomena. Science cares a lot about the "why" of things; "why" is never a part of a law.

The Laws are the basis of science. Without them, you have no reference. Today's science isn't as interested in "why" as much as they are prestige and $. Why is the question that formed the Laws.

I'm actually surprised that they still teach laws as being a part of common scientific practice - they fell out of favor in the later half of the 1800's, and were all but rejected by 1930. I know text books tend to be behind the curve, but 80+ years behind the curve...

Let's go back to Brontosaurus and scientific textbooks which were teaching it in schools in the 1970s. Why are you surprised...it seems to be the norm.

 

[Warthaug]

Very simply put, photos were sent back of recent activity on the moons of Jupiter.

Wouldn't be that recent - we've known the moons of Jupiter to be active since the Voyager flybys - 1979 if memory serves.

Due to their location, temperature etc it was a widely held belief that these moons were dead...much like our own.

Our moon is known to not be dead, as proven by the apollo missions. Just two examples describe what I mean:

1) the moon is known to have at least 4 major types of "moonquacks".
2) plumes of gas are known to frequently form geysers on the moons surface.

I've not heard an adequate explanation of why.

Then you've not read any science book written in the past 20 years, as the reason is well known.

So I can only assume they're younger than we thought.

Goes to show why the word "a$s" is in "assume" - cause when you assume you tend to look like one...

The activity seen on Jupiters moons, from quakes to geysers to crustal faults, is to due gravitational heating and gravitational stress. Basically, Jupiters gravity pulls more strongly on the close side of the moon, producing internal stress, which produces heat. This heat then produces the observed phenomina. We see a simular phenomina with other planets moons (including our own). For that matter, earths tides are a product of that exact type of interaction.


Bryan

 

[gary-ramey]

I'm glad, if that makes your life easier, but I fail to see what, if anything, those occurrences (or your misapprehension of those occurrences) have to do with the topics at hand. For an interesting exploration of that sort of foolishness, read David Brins' "The Practice Effect."

I could reply "ditto". Every one of my arguments was met with some sort of foolishness followed by a link to a website. I thought I'd join in. Can any of you articulate a response without linking a website?