Welcome Guest, Please Read This.

The other one got deleted so here we go again. (abiogenesis is included).

I think I need to spell it out: this thread is for debate too. lol

I believe in evolution, and that no supernatural being had anything to do with our world's progress and stuffz.

I believe in evolution, but I do think a divine being created and manipulated the process.

I believe this thread will be deleted by a mod when we start punching holes in people's reasons not to believe evolution and abiogenesis. As such, I will take my leave of this thread with this final sentence.

I am a deist who believes in evolution and abiogenesis.

If this gets deleted, that's pretty sad. There are soo many religious threads on here and no evolution ones!

I believe in evolution, it's logical. ^^

Believe implies a holding of faith irrespective of evidence.

Therefore, I shall state that given the evidence, I have come to the conclusion that there is a high probability evolution is true.

Belief, as a word, has no such exclusive connotations. Actually, you could also "come to a conclusion" in lack of sufficient evidence or in spite of evidence, so your delicate but overscrutinous use of those particular words strikes me as unnecessary. Excessive, even. I'm not entirely sure why you were so compelled to make any kind of distinction to begin with!



BD

But in all srsness yes. Evolution is the bomb, dawg. G. Bro. Man. 'Homie.'

Dude, as the young kids say nowadays.

Mainly to protect against "SEE EVOLUTION IS A BELIEF JUST LIKE MINE AHAHAHA".

I have no idea what happened while I was in bed, but the thread seems to have been wiped . I'll throw the Cambrian Explosion back open as a point for both sides to debate.

Hi five, man. I feel your pain.

I'd still consider them both under the vocabulary of belief, but, I get what you mean. Those different convictions of truth are not inherently equatable even if they share the same words. After all, a dog and a hermit crab are both "pets"

Momo out~

Here are the links on the RNA World theory again:

Self-Replicating RNA Synthesized.

More on the synthesis of self-replicating RNA.

Bacteria and RNA.

An older webpage done by a graduate student, Introduction to the RNA World.

And some general evolution-related links:

A website that has a bunch of papers written by Stephen Jay Gould, a fairly famous evolutionary biologist.

And, for the other side, here's an Intelligent Design site: Darwinism Refuted. They try to refute things like homology, RNA World theory, punctuated equilibrium, and pretty much anything related to evolution.

This post has been edited by AngelKitty on Nov 5 2009, 01:52 AM

Kids? I have been using dude for over 30 years.

I much prefer the theory of evolution to that of, say, Adam and Eve. Far more logical.

*sigh* You didn't see my response. Ugh!

It went something like this:

Then what was the point of saying that scientists use Cambrian "Explosion"?

Yes I did

1. They're not mutually exclusive
2. I don't think any scientist claims to know which one was the biggest factor
3. It's still a looooooooooooooong time
4. These are just minor details

I'd like to discuss issues that would be "death blows" Human Chromosome 2 was one of these, yet evolution always prevails in the end. Creationists just shrug it off.

Ugh, I got to take a brake. lol

This post has been edited by Ancalagon7 on Nov 5 2009, 03:33 AM

Evolution isn't impossible completely, the biggest claim people make is that we've created nio new species. Well is you count domestic dogs then we have.

In fact... If you look at dogs breeds, cows, horses... And Budgies....

-Dogs look very different to wolves and other simulair hounds but retain the essential "dog-like" look.
-Cows have changed their shape over the centuries since man startd selective breeding. Thats why I shun modern pigs and cows in games and movies; they didn't look like that 500 years ago! They were much skinner for starters (and often they use breeds that didn't even exist).
-Horses, again, though not as obivous there are differences between man breed horses and wild.
-Budgies... Okay the orginal budgie is a green bird. I've got a blue+ white, a lutino, a green one (the tail isn't the same colour as the wilds) with a crest, a grey, one with yellow and white on its head and two shades of blue in its body, a very pale blue one. So again, we're heading off in the realms of differencing themselves from the wild cousins.

And lets not talk about fish.

Okay we've not created new species but we can change the species we've got from one appearance to another.

The potential to possibly someday create entirely new species through genetic manipulation is there, but further research into genetic testing in such a manner has been deemed unethical.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7323298.stm

This post has been edited by Khymarea on Nov 5 2009, 06:41 AM

But don't we technically already do that? Like Geobreeder said, we cross species all the time. We cross plant species, there's even been research to add the gene that protects arctic fish from the cold into plants. We cross breed animals, and it happens in the natural world; Ligers and tiglons - ok rare occurances but they have happened none the less.

Anyone ever see that film years ago - human/ape cross? Wonder if that would ever happen and what the end result would be.

It got deleted? Wow, things must have gotten out of hand after I left for the night. Maybe this one can be left a bit more civil.

To put this out on the table right away: I am not a creationist. I am not a religious person. I am not sold on intelligent design. It really doesn't matter to me. We're here on the planet one way or the other. There may not be a designer at all, but that still doesn't mean we have it right.

I feel it still takes a leap of faith to be convinced that all life evolved from a single ancestor that suddenly started being alive when it wasn't before. All theories on the origin of life require one because no one was there to see it. We can only hypothesize based on current observations.

My concerns with current evolutionary theory are mostly with the abiogenesis aspect. Life as we know it is incredibly complex. Although the basic structure of DNA itself is not complex, getting a living organism from it is.

The DNA of the simplest lifeforms known today contains an estimated 600,000 pairs of nucleotides. Granted, that doesn't mean that the earliest life forms were this way. However, you would still need to get them in some semblance of the right order to get a functioning organism that could reproduce. This is also assuming that the pieces (that have also formed from chance) are holding together in a potentially hostile environment.

The chance of such a thing happening is so low, it could be considered mathematically impossible.

Then, once you had all of the elements put together, you'd still have to find the ON switch. No one really knows what did that, either. I could harvest a bunch of organs and bones, etc. and put them all together, but that doesn't mean I could get a living creature from them.

Anyway since the thread got deleted, I didn't see if anyone had any debate points with me, but I'd be glad to see them now. Civilly so this one doesn't get deleted too.

Lyz.

Actually, all that happened was ancalagon posted about 40 seperate research cites and quotes from them showing more evidence that abiogenesis is possible and likely.

Ok, I'm leaving, I promise.

((Oh, and even if it had gotten out of hand, like so many other threads, it would have simply been closed, not outright deleted. I have an idea as to why, but I won't say it because it may be offensive to very religious people.))

That's all? Well I'd like to see the links, Ancalagon can you PM them to me?

Lyz.