Attempting to close the discussion was certainly not my intention. I'm not anti-science. I'm merely anti-poseur. Everyone is free to discuss whatever pleases them, so far as I'm concerned. Maybe you'll get lucky and get some responses in this thread from actual biologists? It's not my field of expertise, although one of my daughters is a biologist. Oh yeah... I've also stayed in a Holiday Inn Express once or twice.
Abiogensis is a valid scientific hypothesis. Life has yet to be replicated in a lab, but we are getting closer and closer, with experimental results falling within the "prediction" zone. http://www.livescience.com/3214-life-created-lab.html The researchers, at the Scripps Research Institute, created molecules that self-replicate and even evolve and compete to win or lose. If that sounds exactly like life, read on to learn the controversial and thin distinction. http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-01/princeton-researchers-construct-wholly-artificial-proteins-can-sustain-cell-life In a breakthrough that's sure to stir up some controversy, Princeton researchers have reported that they have for the first time created artificial proteins from scratch in the lab that have enabled the growth of living cells. To achieve this, they created genetic sequences never seen in nature and produced completely synthetic proteins that were not modeled on living examples. They then inserted them into living bacteria, many of which thrived with their synthetic molecular machines. Creationism is not a scientific theory. It is a philosophical belief independent of science and solely predicated on the discover of a supernatural/alternate universe where in the "creator" resides. To date there hasn't been a single successful experiment to support this belief. Abiogensis remains more a scientific hypothesis than theory, but so far there has been no experimental contradiction, You are attempting a false equivalency between the creation mythos and abiogenisis and big bang origin theory. Any discussion is speculation on life beyond our puny little planet, be it based on philsophy or science. Since we have now discovered that our planet and indeed our solar system are relatively mundane members of the milkyway galaxy which itself is a mundane spiral galaxy amongst trillions of billions the law of large numbers would suggest that it is highly likely, approaching certainty that there is other life. But that is not evidence, merely a supporting argument. Abiogensis is most definitely subject to the scientific method. It is an hypothesis that is being vigorously persued by biochemist et.al. That it has yet to arrive at any definitive answers is merely part of the scientific process. What are the "observable sciences of genetics"? I know of no scientific study or discovery in the field of evolution that discounts macroevolution. Do you have any non-creationist links? I agree. hence my not getting bogged down in the definition of theory, hypothesis, scientific method, etc. In a nutshell, I reject the notion that there is any equivalency between a philosophical explanation of requiring unseen, unproven speculations of a metaphysical nature and a scientific hypothesis that thru experimentation and observation is rapidly being refined and advanced even if the ultimate outcome remains uncertain.
My point was that people in times past had superstitions, biases, & misinformation that was considered valid for the day. The mind of man, & his search for truth overcame those limitations, & we should be proud of them, not demean them for their lack of knowledge. The knowledge base we have now is built upon the shoulders of these intelligent, courageous thinkers who did not accept the status quo. Their philosophical beliefs did NOT impair them from amazing discoveries & expansions of our knowledge base. I submit that our own history of scientific knowledge proves that religious beliefs are NOT prejudicial factors in the field of inquiry. If anything, i will submit that our current 'status quo' of scientific knowledge is JUST AS MUCH stifled by the scientific elite as at times in the past. Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence. ~Albert Einstein It is, in fact, nothing short of a miracle that the modern methods of instruction have not entirely strangled the holy curiosity of inquiry. ~Albert Einstein So, prejudicial evaluation of examinations or challenges to the existing knowledge base is harmful to our advancement. Facts, logic, & science should be the ONLY criteria, not the philosophical beliefs of the author of the information. Well done! Thanks for a bit of humor in what sometimes is a testy topic. As for me, while i appreciate the credentials of a poster or a sourced quote, & certainly take that into account, their statements would have to be valid: have evidence, submit to the scientific method, & carry some logic in them. Credentials alone are no substitute for reason, & the common thinking person should not be held captive by the tyranny of dogmatic assertions, even from an alleged expert. And no expert should rely on their credentials to support their argument. Once a person begins to appeal to experts, it usually indicates their own arguments are impotent, & they have lost the debate. Experts as a SOURCE of evidence is fine.. but merely posting someone's conclusions is not evidence for the debate. We've all heard someone in a forum debate say something like, 'Well, Dr. Smartiepants said He believes such & such, so you are wrong.' No reasoning is given, just a declaration of victory based on an expert's opinion. That might have it's place in a jury trial, but it is not a factor in the scientific method. The opinions of experts, or the consensus of some group is immaterial in the quest for scientific knowledge. The internet & modern communications has opened up our knowledge base to anyone who chooses to pursue it... it is no longer the exclusive domain of elite academians. We (and even they) should celebrate the liberation of knowledge from a controlling elite to anyone who wishes to find it.
Thanks for the references. Most i have heard of, but i appreciate the links for deeper analysis. Of course it is a valid hypothesis.. & it has been (and still is being) tested, tried, & studied, as it has for millennia. I will restate a point in a reply to windago: ..and while i am thrilled to hear that, 'we're almost there!', that does not support the hypothesis, which is still in the testing phase, & has been for millennia. It is like someone saying, 'i'm almost pregnant!', & expecting you to celebrate their news. It is great that we have isolated some of the building blocks of life, but there still seems to be a bit of a mystery.. something we cannot quite put our finger on, that keeps us from finding the holy grail. I am very hopeful that we will do it, & i hope i am alive to see it, but as of yet, we are still in the testing & proving phase. Not really. I'm not really examining the claims of creationism, or any other 'theory' of origins, like alien seeding. This thread is about evolution as a mechanism of increasing complexity. We are side tracking a bit into abiogenesis, which is not necessary to the ToE, but relates to the overall model. Likewise, YEC is a model.. it's claims are also unproven, & given the nature of the claims, untestable. We can examine the evidence & see how it fits within each model, but we cannot prove the basic assumptions of each model. ToE makes the claim of increasing complexity, yet with NO scientific, repeatable, observable evidence, so the basic claim is NOT in established scientific fact, but assumptions. It COULD be proven, but as of yet, it has not. The major problem of genetics, that i have repeated often in this thread, is a logical & scientific hurdle that has not been crossed. That puts BOTH models as based on unproven assumptions.. one relies on an unknown invisible power, & the other one does too. The mechanism that is required to increase complexity is both unknown, undefined, & invisible. We cannot isolate it, repeat it, or observe it. Every experiment we have done only indicates that this 'theory' is impossible, yet we doggedly pursue this explanation, even though the facts are against us. +1 agreed.. I appreciate you seeing the difference between empirical evidence, & probability. I did not say abiogenesis was not a valid hypothesis, just the 'mechanisms' that produce it. We can't define or observe or replicate creation OR abiogenesis. We can try, & we can pursue substantiating a 'theory', but when all the attempts have failed to this point, we cannot make a declaration of success. Regarding genetics, the burden of proof is on those making the claim to scientifically 'prove' their theory with evidence we can review, repeat, & critique. NO ONE has been able to show what mechanism or process is able to defeat the hard wiring of genetics to make the jumps to increased complexity. Theories have been suggested, but NONE have been proven by the scientific method. All we have are extrapolations & assumptions.. not very good ground to build a theory this important to our knowledge base. ..glad to hear about the 'definitions' problem. Too often those are used to obscure or muddy truth, rather than reveal it. An equivalency is not central to my arguments here. I see it, but it does not matter if anyone else does. The central argument is to prove, scientifically, how life can increase in complexity.. we need the mechanism defined & isolated. Abiogenesis is a side issue, but the parameters are the same. You cannot claim something as 'proven science' when it is not proven, just assumed. There has to be empirical evidence to back up a claim. So while 'maybe', or 'some day', or 'probably', or 'we are very close' are great, hopeful words, they are not scientific proof. Get the girl pregnant, & i'll celebrate your new baby. But 'almost' only makes me say, 'keep trying!' 'Maybe you're not practising enough!
If you wish to "Put your finger on it".....find a clock, watch it for a year, and multiply by about 4 Billion. Oh....and you might need a couple Trillion clocks as well.
The Theory of Evolution is a valid scientific theory. Creationism is not. there is no equivalency as one is based on science, observation, experimentation and analysis and the other is based on faith in an imagined supernatural/metaphysical universe. At one time both irreducible and increasing complexity were used as an "intelligent design" argument but those arguments have been thoroughly debunked. Here is some additional SCIENTIFIC perspectives on the subject. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-surprising-origins-of-evolutionary-complexity/ <snip> Darwin's musings on the origin of complexity have found support in modern biology. Today biologists can probe the eye and other organs in detail at the molecular level, where they find immensely complex proteins joining together to make structures that bear a striking resemblance to portals, conveyor belts and motors. Such intricate systems of proteins can evolve from simpler ones, with natural selection favoring the intermediates along the way. But recently some scientists and philosophers have suggested that complexity can arise through other routes. Some argue that life has a built-in tendency to become more complex over time. Others maintain that as random mutations arise, complexity emerges as a side effect, even without natural selection to help it along. Complexity, they say, is not purely the result of millions of years of fine-tuning through natural selection—the process that Richard Dawkins famously dubbed “the blind watchmaker.” To some extent, it just happens. http://www.pnas.org/content/97/9/4463.full.pdf To make a case for or against a trend in the evolution of complexity in biological evolution, complexity needs to be both rigorously defined and measurable. A recent information-theoretic (but intuitively evident) definition identifies genomic complexity with the amount of information a sequence stores about its environment. Weinvestigate the evolution of genomic complexity in populations of digital organisms and monitor in detail the evolutionary transitions that increase complexity. We show that, because natural selection forces genomes to behave as a natural ‘‘Maxwell Demon,’’ within a fixed environment, genomic complexity is forced to increase.
We only know what we know at this moment in time...and all of it is subject to change anytime in the future...
Actually, multiple methods of dating the earth all come out with a number of about 5.4 billion years old. It does assume that the basic physical laws of the universe don't change. There is no evidence that they do, other than speculation.
But what's a few billion years between friends? This does illustrate the impossibility of assumptions like this. There is NO consensus, even if that mattered. We can only speculate & make complex calculations, based on guesses & assumptions. In post #335, windigo asserted very confidently that we 'KNOW' the earth to be 14 billion. Here you assert that they 'ALL' come out 5.4 billion. Neither of these numbers has any basis in empirical reality, but only assumptions. That is a major problem i see in modern science.. they are human, & as such, make assumptions, then run with them, forgetting the basis of their conclusions are based on a guess. It would be great if someone discovered a way to date things accurately, or to figure out all the possible variables over periods of billions of years. But that seems very unlikely, so speculations are all we have. We have to keep that in mind.. the very foundation of much that we build upon is NOT proven science, just speculation & assumption.
One can only assume you do not comprehend either English or Time frames....as this entire post is amazingly defunct and silly. It may simply be you have no actual idea what you are delving into here...however.
You mistyped. He said it's the universe that's 14 billion years old. You said the earth was 14 billion years old. That was your mistake, not his. I mistyped as well. I should have said 4.5 billion years old. A bit of a dyslexic memory on my part. Your quote: Multiple dating methods all end up around 4.5 billion years old for the sun, solar system and earth.
I do not see time as having any mechanism built in to accomplish the claim. How can time provide the spark for abiogenesis? It is an assumption, based on wishful thinking, nothing more. Now we have theories of relativity, the assumptions of a constant expansion of the universe, loop theories, crunch theories, & the possibilities of unknowns make any dogmatic declaration of absolutes with time assumptions not only impossible, but absurd to any thinking person. I see the 'time' speculations as model building.. trying to fit the pieces together so they all make sense.. but some of these pieces don't fit, & forcing them just ruins the puzzle. I don't have a problem with someone believing in these time frames, but asserting them as proven fact is an offense to science, & should not be tolerated. Hmm.. so instead of rebutting any points, or providing evidence to support your view, you go right to dismissal.. you don't prove that i 'have no actual idea' here, just assert it, as a dismissal tactic. This is NOT supposed to be that kind of thread. This is a logical & scientific thread, where evidence is given, & the scientific method is followed. I have clearly made assertions here, but have also backed them up with logic, evidence, & challenges to the side making the claims. A simple dismissal may work as a tactic to protect dogma, but it has no value in a logical, scientific debate. Good catch. My mistake, too. But i think you are mistaken about the 'ALL' part. That is a bit misleading in something like this. i'll accept 'many', or even 'a lot'. I see NO consensus, as there is no reviewable, repeatable, observable, or even logical evidence to support the claims. They are speculations, built upon assumptions. This is another side point: time. But the same method applies. Grandiose claims still need to be supported.. as with abiogenesis & increase in complexity. To be true science, there has to be supporting evidence, not just philosophical arguments, statistics, or wishful thinking.
I thought we had discussed time earlier in this thread, relating to increasing complexity.. but the same principle is there in abiogenesis. 'Time' has no power to affect any changes. There is nothing built in to time to create or change life. It can explain a POSSIBILITY of long term changes, once you assume those can happen, but it cannot make them to happen.
The subject of origins & complexity has come up again, but instead of repeating myself over & over, i challenge anyone who wants to debate the subject to pick it up here, where i have built a case against any dogmatic assertion of origins. My central points have been made here, & are open for evaluation & rebuttal. If there is no desire to address this topic with me here, i have no desire to repeat it in another thread. I have also tried to lay ground rules, & insist on a scientific analysis, based on the scientific method, rather than hysterical arguments based on emotion or logical fallacies. I don't have a lot of time to debate this subject here, but if anyone wishes to, i will try to oblige. sincerely, usfan
Nice strawman. Evolution does not imply any sort of direction--either towards or away from complexity. Of course, if you build a strawman argument, you will win it. If you don't something is wrong. - - - Updated - - - No, it's not. It's a version of evolution that you invented.
Actually, I have an issue with your infographic and your assumptions. The "Test with an Experiment" is not absolute. Evolution can take millions of years and we've only had the theory a little over a hundred. There is just no way to see one species change into another in that short amount of time. Cosmology has the same problem. The time and distance involved in their discipline makes experimentation very difficult, yet they have many theories that are accepted. Stephen Hawkings came up with Hawking Radiation before anyone had even seen a black hole. What is funny is that the statement you use "Evolution is the mechanism that causes an increase in complexity in life forms" actually assumes that evolution is true, though the statement is false. Evolution is NOT the mechanism that causes an increase in complexity in life forms, that would be Natural Selection. Evolution is the theory that life forms change over time, so if life is increasing (or decreasing) in complexity, that would be evolution. The mechanism behind it could be Natural Selection, Lamarckian Selection, Alien Manipulation or something completely different.
If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes? Or did we evolve from one branch of apes that no longer exists? Anyone care to speculate on the Hobbit, which was a different race of humans than ourselves and disappeared not that long ago? Science claims that there is an intelligent gene. Which might explain why there are tribes still on the planet that haven't gone much beyond the use of stone age tools because no one who carries the gene introduced the "I' gene into the tribe.
I'll take Alien Manipulation, referring to the intelligent gene being a part of most, but not all, of us. The reason these kinds of topics turn into religious arguments is because evolution doesn't explain creation. Is it possible that life was created, along with all matter, at the time of the Big Bang and spewed across the universe?
Evolution does not require the extinction of a species and we're talking about timeframes of hundreds of thousands and millions of years. A million years from now, should humans not annihilate themselves first, we can guess some humans might look the same/similar as we do today while others will have charted another direction...
200-300 religions existing today do not explain creation? All of them have their unique stories, their folklore, their oral histories, etc. which attempt to answer scientific questions with storytelling. 'Life' was not created by the BB. But the building blocks of life as we understand it, along with friendly environments, did exist or does exist everywhere. IMO it's a roll of the dice how planets evolve, whether life as we know it evolves, but when having hundreds and hundreds of billions of planets, the odds should be pretty good that life forms are evolving as they have on Earth...
I'll stick with "evolution doesn't explain creation". Where did the first life form come from? IDK and neither does anyone else IMO.
Surely is evolution shows us anything, its an evolution from the simple less complex to the less simple and more complex. We don't imagine mammals regressing to become single cell organisms, we envision the exact opposite. Life has evolved to greater complexity to move away from entrophy. High entrophy is not desirable, low entrophy is when it comes to life. Added complexity, evolving towards that, gives us low entrophy. Also, since Consciousness is the Fundamental, instead of matter being the fundamental, evolution had this Consciousness fully involved in it. Once biology can step out of its basic materialistic paradigm, the science of evolution will become more coherent, and will join in with the hard sciences, as being much harder, with far fewer assumptions involved to keep the theories glued together. And we are moving closer to that each day. But science progresses by the number of tombstones present. Dogmatic scientists literally have to die in order for science to move forward.
