Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
OK ... I'll bite. Prove me wrong with verifiable, peer reviewed "evidence" or "proof" of abiogenesis... that it is not only possible or plausible ... but that is indeed actually how life began on this planet. How about "proof" (not loosely interpreted coincidences) that all life on this planet originated from a common ancestor? Got any of that? Let us remember, science is the realm of what is observable, testable, and reproducible. Give me just one exampple of an observable, testable, and reproducible instance of one type of organism mutating into a completely different type of organism and I'll shut my mouth. I'm not here making a case for creation. I'm here calling BS on the claim that neo-darwinist evolution is fact. Taking the affirmative position, the burden of proof is on you, not me.
And for the record, there are scores of geneticists and microbiologists who do not agree with your position on these issues. But again, since you are obviously an objective scientist, you should already know that.
Firstly, your Creationist/ID "microbiologists and geneticists", like Behe and others who indulge in psuedosciences, get pwned constantly by legitimate scientists, and their "work" never stands up to simply peer review. See vid below.
Secondly, in the absence of hard scientific evidence and proof, one shouldn't subsitute metaphysical reasoning, especially from an ancient manyscript that has been proven wrong time and time again, and cannot even begin to be offered as self supporting evidence, and certainly shouldn't even be considered in the least part of any argument concerning abiogenisis, science, or anything relating to physical reality at all.
We certainly have many theories concerning abiogenisis, all are relevant and based on scientific methods and principles, and all are based on SOME notion of reality.
Here's the vid where Prof Miller, a practicing Catholic, talks of how he pwned Behe in court, resulting in the CHRISTIAN Judge finding in favor of kicking Intelligent Design (aka Creationism) out of public school cirriculum as the poorly hidden Creationism that ID is. The actual lecture is about an hour but is very informative and will provide you with many of the answers you seek. The remainder is a Q&A period...
Give me just one exampple of an observable, testable, and reproducible instance of one type of organism mutating into a completely different type of organism and I'll shut my mouth.
There it is again folks! Evidence of a complete lack of what the ToE says. The problem with you guys and the creationist websites that you get your "evidence" from, is that you seem to think that a fish went to sleep on a Monday night and woke up on Tuesday morning as a lizard or half-fish, half-lizard. The changes take place over hundreds of thousands or even millions of years not in a few weeks as you seem to think.
In a period of say 2,000 years there would probably be no noticeable difference. In say 5,000 years, there might be a noticeable difference in something like the fins becoming strong enough to support the weight of the fish as it searches for food in water that is not deep enough to allow it to swim. In another 10,000 the fins may have developed enough to allow the fish to haul itself out of the water to access food near the shore. An example of this would be the 'mudskipper' - a fish that can spend short periods out of water.
Another 10,000 years the fish will have adapted to spending more time out of water than it does in water because there is a more abundant food source on the river bank than in the water and the fins become more like legs, it looses the need for a tail-fin and then....well you get the picture, we have something resembling a lizard, which even you must admit is not a species of fish!!
You do know the truth it is in you and you know it because you are in the truth and those who are not in the truth they do not know it because they are blind to it and to you see why because our father he is like that to blind folks to his truth if he wants to do that according to his want to do it. SO THEN TO KNOW THE TRUTH REQUIRES TO BE IN THE SPIRIT OF GOD AS HE SEES IT TO HIS ADVANTAGE ACCORDING TO HIS WANT TO TAKE3 ADVANTAGE OF A PERSON AND AT HIS WILL AND BECAUSE HE LOVES TO BEND WILLS TO HIS AND BECAUISE HE IS LIKE THAT AND HE WILL DI HIS WILL HOW EVER GHE SO CHOOSES TO RFOR TO DO IT.
Could you please use punctuation and get rids of the caps? It would make your posts easier to read. And I still don't understand what you're saying.
Again, we come to this crazy idea that a person should believe anything which can't be absolutely, conclusively proven 100% false. Can anyone explain what that approach is a good idea?
There it is again folks! Evidence of a complete lack of what the ToE says. The problem with you guys and the creationist websites that you get your "evidence" from, is that you seem to think that a fish went to sleep on a Monday night and woke up on Tuesday morning as a lizard or half-fish, half-lizard. The changes take place over hundreds of thousands or even millions of years not in a few weeks as you seem to think.
In a period of say 2,000 years there would probably be no noticeable difference. In say 5,000 years, there might be a noticeable difference in something like the fins becoming strong enough to support the weight of the fish as it searches for food in water that is not deep enough to allow it to swim. In another 10,000 the fins may have developed enough to allow the fish to haul itself out of the water to access food near the shore. An example of this would be the 'mudskipper' - a fish that can spend short periods out of water.
Another 10,000 years the fish will have adapted to spending more time out of water than it does in water because there is a more abundant food source on the river bank than in the water and the fins become more like legs, it looses the need for a tail-fin and then....well you get the picture, we have something resembling a lizard, which even you must admit is not a species of fish!!
No ... I understand the terms and definitions perfectly. You make my point for me. All of the above that you just posted is nothing more than speculation ... hypothesis, not theory and certainly not fact. It flies in the face of punctuated equilibrium and irreducible complexity Until it becomes observable, testable, and reproducible ... that is. There is a huge leap of logic in evolutionary thought. That invalid line of argumentation is that if "A" lead to "B" then "F" leads to "Z". Just because we can observe different types of critters going through processes of adaptation and variation does not establish that those variations and adaptations lead to the cummulative retention of new genetic information that eventually leads to one type of organism transforming into another different type of organism. It does not matter how much time you want to allow. The faulty premises that evolution and abiogenesis rely on are: 1. Given enough time and any degree of statistical probability, A. anything can happen and B. everything will happen. These are invalid premises for numerous reasons. Anyone with a basic understanding of statistics knows this.
Remember that it is evolutionists, not creationists that keep changing the rules of the game. First, the claim was that evolution took only millions of years to lead to all speciation on the planet. When scientists discovered that was not nearly enough time, it changed to tens of millions of years, then hiundreds of millions, then billions, etc. It's a moving target and the rules and definitions keep changing: gradual change over time, mutations, puntuated equilibrium, seeding of interstellar DNA.
Let's also not forget that what we observe in the world around us is depleting genetic information, not the opposite. Natural selection does not add new genetic information. If what we observe in the world around us today gives us clues and indications as to what happened in the past, we should conclude that the tree of life as represented in textbooks is upsidedown.
Last edited by Fighting For Air; 08-12-2009 at 03:14 PM..
Firstly, your Creationist/ID "microbiologists and geneticists", like Behe and others who indulge in psuedosciences, get pwned constantly by legitimate scientists, and their "work" never stands up to simply peer review. See vid below.
Secondly, in the absence of hard scientific evidence and proof, one shouldn't subsitute metaphysical reasoning, especially from an ancient manyscript that has been proven wrong time and time again, and cannot even begin to be offered as self supporting evidence, and certainly shouldn't even be considered in the least part of any argument concerning abiogenisis, science, or anything relating to physical reality at all.
We certainly have many theories concerning abiogenisis, all are relevant and based on scientific methods and principles, and all are based on SOME notion of reality.
Here's the vid where Prof Miller, a practicing Catholic, talks of how he pwned Behe in court, resulting in the CHRISTIAN Judge finding in favor of kicking Intelligent Design (aka Creationism) out of public school cirriculum as the poorly hidden Creationism that ID is. The actual lecture is about an hour but is very informative and will provide you with many of the answers you seek. The remainder is a Q&A period...
1. I don't substitute superstition and metaphysical reasoning with hard science. Some on this forum may, but please don't assume you can lump me in with all of those people. I'm not whipping out a bible and saying, "Here... see ... it says everything was created." I'm just calling BS on all the unsubstantiated claims of evolutionists. The hypothesis of the descent of all life from a common ancestor is not proven scientifically, it is not observable, not testable, and not reproducible. How can you possibly claim it is good science?
2. A youtube video is not observable, testable, and reproducible evidence for abiogenesis or for all speciation having evolved from a common ancestor. My challenge stands. Give me a legitimate, observable, testable, reproducible, verifiable example showing that it is indeed possible for an organism to undergo gradual adaptive change and undirected genetic mutation that results in the subsequent existence of an entrirely new type of organism. I'll check it out and if valid, I'll concede it is entirely possible that evolution may have been the cause for all speciation on this planet.
3. There are no legitimate "theories" on abiogenesis. There are only hypotheses. There is a huge difference. Those hypotheses are on the same type of shaky foundation that the unseen "Oort" cloud is as the birthplace of comets. No one has been able to observe it happening, no one has been able to test it nor reproduce it, and no one has been able to induce it in a lab under ideal and controlled circumstances ... let alone imagining it happening all by itself on an infant earth. Make no mistake about it, abiogenesis is not science.
Last edited by Fighting For Air; 08-12-2009 at 03:14 PM..
The information/organization conundrum. It is like the chicken or the egg problem.
Genetic information cannot exist without very specific organization in the nucleotides. However, by all laboratory testing and research done to date that I am aware of, the organization in the nucleotides cannot occur undirected or randomly. If I am mistaken on this, someone feel free to point me to a few peer reviewed scientific research resources.
The long and short of it is that the information has to exist first to dictate how all these chemicals line up and organize themsleves - the instructions have already be there, detailed and specific organization does not happen randomly or all by itself when it comes to genetic information. But, the information itself is a result of the organization in the chemical structure. That's why all attempts at abiogenesis in a lab have failed. Creating a living organism from non-living matter simply does not work out. Even if a scientist were able to induce it in ideal conditions in a lab, all that would prove is that it is possible for an intelligent being to manipulate an evironment to bring a living organism into being from non-living matter - support for creation, not life from only natural forces. Even Richard Dawkins has conceded that the best explanation for life on this planet is not abiogenesis but rather seeding of interstellar DNA from life that existed somewhere else in the universe. But of course, he cannot say where that other life came from. Even he has to resort to wild speculation and would rather do that than even consider the possibility that a higher power/creator brought life into existence. To him, alien seeding is more probable than creation.
Living organsims are complicated and sophisticated bio-chemical machines that rely on the organization of information for existence. We can use applied statistics to determine which is more probable: livings organisms from undirected natural forces or from deliberate, intentional action by an intelligent being.
1. We take the instances of complex and sophisticated machines (or simply the instances of the organization of information that relies on organization for its existence) in the universe that we can observe, test and reproduce.
2. We take the number of those instances that we can observe, test, and reproduce that have come into existence all by themselves without anything creating them. That number is zero.
3. We take the number of those instances that we can observe, test, and reproduce that have come into existence through the deliberate and intentional actions of an intelligent lifeform. That number is "all".
Therefore, the exponentially greater statistical probability based on what we can observe, test, and reproduce regarding living organisms' dependence on the organization of information is that life came from deliberate, intentional action - not random, undirected natural forces.
This is what is called a valid and logical argument ... something that evolutionists are very unfamiliar with.
We know that we cannot put all the raw materials needed for an automobile into a large vat, zap it with electricity, swirl it around, shake it up and dump it out on the ground and end up with a self-replicating, self-repairing, self-fueling Ferrari. Hell, we couldn't even get a broke down Yugo from all that. Living organisms are far more complex than any exotic sports car. If nature cannot provide the latter, it most certainly cannot provide the former.
What we observe in the world around us is decay, deterioration and no examples of the creation of new information from non-living matter and natural forces. The creation of information, as we observe it today, is all stimluated through living organisms. Why would we assume, without proof, that it was any different 5 million years ago or 5 billion years ago?
It simply does not matter how much time you want to allow or how perfect you want to imagine your primordial soup.
Basic statistical probability ... no matter how you slice it and dice it ... confirms that organization, information, and the organization of information is much more likely to come from an intelligent being than from undirected, natural forces. Creation is more probable than abiogenesis.
Last edited by Fighting For Air; 08-12-2009 at 03:19 PM..
1. I don't substitute superstition and metephysical reasoning with hard science. Some on this forum may, but please don't assume you can lump me in with all of those people. I'm not whipping out a bible and saying, "Here... see ... it says everything was created." I'm just calling BS on all the unsubstantiated claims of evolutionists. The hypothesis of the descent of all life from a common ancestor is not proven scientifically, it is not observable, not testable, and not reproducible. How can you possibly claim it is good science?
Intelligent Design was developed by the ancient Greek Philosophers as a theosophic excersise, an attempt to determine how THEIR gods created the earth. It has recently been dragged out and dusted off by the religious right (sic) in this Nation in a very lame, blatant, and transperent attempt to circumvent SCOTUS rulings and our Cosntitution to reintroduce their relgiious Creation myths back into public school cirriculum, and also a very Failed attempt to lend their religion some validity by attempting to prove their religion by tacking on a lab coat to their bible. So please, spare us the fake outrage at being "lumped" in with the bible thumpers. Intelligent Design, by it's very premise, alludes to a creator deity.
Evolution is a proven theory. While we may indeed lack the "pedigree chart" back to the first forms of life on the planet, we do know where human life evolved from. We also have a damned good idea of abiogenisis as well. However, attempting to include religion into science as a replacement for science, especially based upon a flawd and disproven scripture, doesn't science make.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fighting For Air
2. A youtube video is not observable, testable, and reproducible evidence for abiogenesis or for all speciation having evolved from a common ancestor. My challenge stands. Give me a legitimate, observable, testable, reproducible, verifiable example showing that it is indeed possible for an organism to undergo gradual adaptive change and undirected genetic mutation that results in the subsequent existence of an entrirely new type of organism. I'll check it out and if valid, I'll concede it is entirely possible that evolution may have been the cause for all speciation on this planet.
Dr. Miller, in the video, dismantles the idea of IE, creationism, and ID as "science" as well. This is no compilation of unrelated photos and photoshop "evidence" crafted and forwarded by some 9/11 myther style conspiracy nuts. This is a learned individual illustrating HOW he destroyed Behe's IE argument in a court of law, and IE/ID in general.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fighting For Air
3. There are no legitimate "theories" on abiogenesis. There are only hypotheses. There is a huge difference. Those hypotheses are on the same type of shaky foundation that the unseen "Oort" cloud is as the birthplace of comets. No one has been able to observe it happening, no one has been able to test it nor reproduce it, and no one has been able to induce it in a lab under ideal and controlled circumstances ... let alone imagining it happening all by itself on an infant earth. Make no mistake about it, abiogenesis is not science.
No one has observed black holes either. And a hypothosis is, of course, part of the scientific method and part and parcel of any theory. Also, to expect human beings to induce in a lab what took nature millenia to achieve is asanine to demand. Shall scientific investigators attempt to clone "Lucy" and make her evolve as well?
Bacteria is thought to be the earliest forms of life on the planet. Bacteria, and especially viruses, can evolve, for all intents and purposes, almost instantaniously as they develope defenses against new drugs and anti-bacterial agents and create new, resistant copies of themselves. This is why it is so important to complete an anti-viral/anti-bacterial regimine as proscribed by your doctor, and an example of HOW bacteria could eventually develope into multicelled organisms as alrge as a brontosaurus and as "intelligent" as human beings.
Evolution is, after all, the process of adaptation to new environments in the never ending quest for new, plentiful food sources and protection from predators. Considering the most primitive animals, as well as bacteria bacteria, ever found to date exist in deep dea environments, specifically volcanic vents, it is quite safe to assume that this is where life started on the planet.
So please, spare us the fake outrage at being "lumped" in with the bible thumpers. Intelligent Design, by it's very premise, alludes to a creator deity.
Nothing fake and no outrage here. I was simply pointing out that you and others like you on this forum make assertions about me that are simply false. In not one of my posts have I ever tried to defend my position with some religous text or argument. Hell, I haven't even taken the affirmative. I'm just asking you to pony up the evidence or proof for "your" assertions. Rather than doing that, you continue with personal attacks which only serves to give you less and less credibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi
Evolution is a proven theory.
Contradiction in terms. You've got to be joking. "Proven" would mean "proof" which would surpass "theory". Might I recommend you get your terms and definitions straight. The descent of all life from a common ancestor is not proven - that is not even solid theory. It is hypothesis. Adaptation and variation are proven. I would concede there is some "evidence" that could be interpreted to support common descent but there is most certainly zero "proof" of it or "proof" that one type of organism has ever transformed into a completey different type of organism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi
While we may indeed lack the "pedigree chart" back to the first forms of life on the planet, we do know where human life evolved from.
Citations please. No, we don't "know" where human life evolved from. It is all complete speculation. I've read Dawkins and Gould and several other contemporary works by various evolutionary biologists. None of them make so bold of an assertion as you just made. At least most of them, when pressed, actually admit that significant problems and holes exist in their conclusions. You make claims that have no basis in reality. Show me some hard, peer reviewed and verified "proof" that we can all go read and confirm as valid through some type of independent verification ... not loosely interpreted evidence... and I'll concede. My challenge stands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi
Dr. Miller, in the video, dismantles the idea of IE, creationism, and ID as "science" as well. This is no compilation of unrelated photos and photoshop "evidence" crafted and forwarded by some 9/11 myther style conspiracy nuts. This is a learned individual illustrating HOW he destroyed Behe's IE argument in a court of law, and IE/ID in general.
Again, my challenge stands. A youtube video is not scientific evidence of your claims of "proof" of common descent or the origin of man. If you are so certain in your assertions, quit posting videos and give us all some light technical reading (not an internet commentary) that we can test against the works of other scientists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi
No one has observed black holes either. And a hypothosis is, of course, part of the scientific method and part and parcel of any theory. Also, to expect human beings to induce in a lab what took nature millenia to achieve is asanine to demand. Shall scientific investigators attempt to clone "Lucy" and make her evolve as well?.
I'm not demanding anything. I'm only stating the facts... unlike you and several of the other evolutionists in this forum. Fact: abiogenesis is not observed, tested, or reproduced. That is not open to interpretation nor is it debatable. Fact: the descent of all life from a common ancestor is not observed, tested, or reproduced. Fact: The ability of one type of organism to evolve or mutate into a completely different type of organism is not observed, tested, or reproduced. If any of these are actually observed, tested, and reproduced... please enlighten me with verifiable scientific evidence. In evolution and abiogenesis, science has been hijacked by that which is completely unscientific. Baseless assertions, speculation, and leaps of logic abound in evolutionary paradigms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi
Bacteria is thought to be the earliest forms of life on the planet. Bacteria, and especially viruses, can evolve, for all intents and purposes, almost instantaniously as they develope defenses against new drugs and anti-bacterial agents and create new, resistant copies of themselves.
At least you finally admit "is thought" instead of asserting facts that don't exist. Props to you. It's about time. However, you need to read up on your microbiology. All of the most recent work on drug resistant bacteria has established that those resistant strains are already present and don't suddenly mutate from the non-resistant strains. When the non-resistant strains are eliminated or reduced by the drug, the resistant strains flourish. When the non-resistant strains are reintroduced, the resistant strains decline. Viruses are a different critter .... buuuuttttttt....
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi
... and an example of HOW bacteria could eventually develope into multicelled organisms as alrge as a brontosaurus and as "intelligent" as human beings.
Mmmm ... no, it isn't. There is no evidence that a bacterium or virus is ever capable of being anything other than a bacterium or virus or capable of ever reproducing into something that is not a bacterium or virus. Bacteria that may mutate to become drug resistant are still bacteria. It is a huge leap of logic to assert that because bacteria can adapt and vary that they can eventually turn into a jack-rabbit. There is no evidence that this type of cumulative retention of new genetic information is possible - let alone plausible or factual.
Originally Posted by AxisMundi Evolution is a proven theory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fighting For Air
Contradiction in terms. You've got to be joking. "Proven" would mean "proof" which would surpass "theory"
.
Only if you have a layman's understanding of what a "theory" is in science.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
