Evolution, Creationisim, Abiogenisis, etc.

[LadyNightshade]

What's most interesting is Charles Darwin's book, "On the Origin of Species" never once mentions how things were created. It only talks about how there came to be such variation.

 

Sometimes it's frustrating because people get the idea that someone can't believe in both evolution (on a macro and micro scale) and creationism.

[potterwolf]

What's most interesting is Charles Darwin's book, "On the Origin of Species" never once mentions how things were created. It only talks about how there came to be such variation.

 

Sometimes it's frustrating because people get the idea that someone can't believe in both evolution (on a macro and micro scale) and creationism.

Yeah, a lot of people don't realize that abiogenesis and evolution are different theories. But still, I understand why creationism and evolution are seen as contradictory, especially since many creationists believe that all species were created in their current state.

[Alpha1]

A) I understand that abiogenesis is far more complicated than the picture on the left hand side. You, of all people, should know I'm not an idiot and do put a fair amount of research into my opinions.

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ric...r/addendaB.html

 

Here’s a list of attempts using statistics. Look at Szostak’s work. No proteins needed.

 

 

Ken Miller is Catholic, yet he accepts abiogenesis.

 

“The larger question that I think you're asking is how soon is it going to be that we will have an answer to the riddle of how the first living cell originated from nonliving chemicals on this planet? I am not optimistic that it's gonna happen anytime soon. And the reason for that is, happened a long time ago and it didn't leave much evidence, but there are a number of researchers who have put together pieces of the puzzle and I am certainly confident that that's exactly how it took place. Jack Szostak at Harvard has done some absolutely brilliant work that involves self-replicating RNA molecules and the simulations of conditions on the primitive earth, so I certainly think that it happened that way, but in terms of achieving a total understanding I think we're a couple of decades away from really understanding how life originated on this earth.” – Kenneth Miller

 

Saying "It may have come from outer space" doesn't actualy answer the question. It just pushes it back further. Saying the left-handed bias came from meteorites doesn't even begin to explain how the left-handed bias occured on meteorites in the first place. Same problem, just in a different location.

 

http://iopscience.iop.org/2041-8205/727/2/L27/

 

Non-racemic amino acids produced by UV-CPL.

 

They can state with confidence that the meteorites weren’t contaminated, so would it really matter if they didn’t find the natural mechanism doing it? The evidence for bias in nature would be there; it’s just that the researchers didn’t see it happen.

 

Now, see, that argument has precisely the same amount of proof for it as creationism. We're here, so it *must* have happened. Sorry, don't accept "we're here" as any kind of proof for anything.

 

One of the best evidences for abiogenesis is the fossil record. The problem is that chemical evolution wasn’t kept intact. It’s a matter of putting the puzzle together.

We also possess numerous historical examples of naturalistic explanations supplanting supernatural ones and none going the other way, so there is a strong inductive argument in favor of abiogenesis.

 

Incidently I can't help but wonder about how chromasomes developed into having different numbers of pairs in them. This may seem rather silly... but geneticaly choromasome pairs of different length can produce offspring, but those are almost invariably infertile. Like Mules. Horses and Donkeys have different jnumbers of chromasomes. They can interbreed, but in 99.99% of cases the resulting offspring is infertile. And all recorded fertile offspring have been female which, when bred back to horses, only pass the horse DNA on.

 

 

As Ken Miller put it, the evidence for chromosomal fusion in a common ancestor of humans and apes is unmistakable.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synteny

 

“Genomic sequencing and mapping have enabled comparison of the general structures of genomes of many different species. The general finding is that organisms of relatively recent divergence show similar blocks of genes in the same relative positions in the genome. This situation is called synteny, translated roughly as possessing common chromosome sequences. For example, many of the genes of humans are syntenic with those of other mammals—not only apes but also cows, mice, and so on. Study of synteny can show how the genome is cut and pasted in the course of evolution.”

 

For example, if we compared chromosome 2 in humans to a dog’s genome, it would be a patchwork of multiple chromosomes.

 

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/chrom.surv...ml#anchor676444

 

“We have all heard that the horse and the donkey produce an infertile mule in crossing because of a different number of chromosomes in the two species. Well, apparently there is more to the story than we are usually told, because variations in chromosome number are known to occur in many different animal species, and although they sometimes seem to lead to reduced fertility, this is often not the case.”

 

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/09/th...e-of-hum-3.html

 

This site tackles some of the problems brought up.

 

[satyr76]

I haven't done much research on the subject, but I believe in evolution. It makes a lot more sense than other theories I've heard.

 

However, I'm not entirely sure if it's right. Once upon a time, it was a known fact that the sun revolved around the Earth. Now, we know that the Earth revolves around the sun. Even studies conducted a few ears ago have been proven false. Sometimes I feel like we're just stuck in an endless cycle of being incorrect, and we'll never know how the universe actually works. That;s not to say I necessarily believe that, but I feel like it's sort of a possibility.

/incoherent rambles

 

[Kai]

Now, see, that argument has precisely the same amount of proof for it as creationism. We're here, so it *must* have happened. Sorry, don't accept "we're here" as any kind of proof for anything.

Abiogenesis isn't a theory, it's a field of science. It's the study of how this occured. Creationism is a theory of abiogenesis. When you say "it" must have happened, "it" is only the forming of biological life from inorganic matter, somehow, which must certainly have occured, because we're here. That's all, nobody's claimed for certain that it occured by amino acids, RNA, whatever.

[potterwolf]

I haven't done much research on the subject, but I believe in evolution. It makes a lot more sense than other theories I've heard.

 

However, I'm not entirely sure if it's right. Once upon a time, it was a known fact that the sun revolved around the Earth. Now, we know that the Earth revolves around the sun. Even studies conducted a few ears ago have been proven false. Sometimes I feel like we're just stuck in an endless cycle of being incorrect, and we'll never know how the universe actually works. That;s not to say I necessarily believe that, but I feel like it's sort of a possibility.

/incoherent rambles

Lots of scientific hypotheses have been proven wrong, and there are many times when we have to adjust our understanding of theories and things, but that doesn't mean we're in a cycle of being incorrect. I think it's more likely that we're in a cycle of being incorrect, but getting closer to being correct at all times. Sure, we don't understand a lot of things. But every time we discover something, we get a little bit closer to understanding the universe.

[Lila]

Lots of scientific hypotheses have been proven wrong, and there are many times when we have to adjust our understanding of theories and things, but that doesn't mean we're in a cycle of being incorrect. I think it's more likely that we're in a cycle of being incorrect, but getting closer to being correct at all times. Sure, we don't understand a lot of things. But every time we discover something, we get a little bit closer to understanding the universe.

Well said.

[Kestra15]

I haven't done much research on the subject, but I believe in evolution. It makes a lot more sense than other theories I've heard.

 

However, I'm not entirely sure if it's right. Once upon a time, it was a known fact that the sun revolved around the Earth. Now, we know that the Earth revolves around the sun. Even studies conducted a few ears ago have been proven false. Sometimes I feel like we're just stuck in an endless cycle of being incorrect, and we'll never know how the universe actually works. That;s not to say I necessarily believe that, but I feel like it's sort of a possibility.

/incoherent rambles

In other words:

 

[Princess Artemis]

I didn't think this was the "take potshots at religion" thread, Kestra.

[TheDarkCynder]

I haven't done much research on the subject, but I believe in evolution. It makes a lot more sense than other theories I've heard.

 

However, I'm not entirely sure if it's right. Once upon a time, it was a known fact that the sun revolved around the Earth. Now, we know that the Earth revolves around the sun. Even studies conducted a few ears ago have been proven false. Sometimes I feel like we're just stuck in an endless cycle of being incorrect, and we'll never know how the universe actually works. That;s not to say I necessarily believe that, but I feel like it's sort of a possibility.

/incoherent rambles

The Scientific Method does not claim to never be off. A scientific fact only states that is has gained enough repeatable and supportive evidence to be known as something currently known. The Ptolemaic System was never a scientific fact, because there was not any scientific evidence to support it. Being "wrong" is a part of the Scientific Method.

[grimace]

I didn't think this was the "take potshots at religion" thread, Kestra.

Except what they posted is relevant, and entirely true.

 

This argument always turns into the evolution side giving reasonable, pretty much empirical evidence, and the religious side saying "No you're wrong because god" and then basically going "lalala I can't hear you" when anyone else tries to explain anything.

 

This......isn't really a debate imo.

[Princess Artemis]

Except what they posted is relevant, and entirely true.

 

This argument always turns into the evolution side giving reasonable, pretty much empirical evidence, and the religious side saying "No you're wrong because god" and then basically going "lalala I can't hear you" when anyone else tries to explain anything.

 

This......isn't really a debate imo.

Except it was to a person who did not bring up religion at all.

 

Perhaps the argument does turn that way, but given that it has not and the thread is so young, perhaps it isn't time to make preemptive strikes yet?

[grimace]

Except it was to a person who did not bring up religion at all.

 

Perhaps the argument does turn that way, but given that it has not and the thread is so young, perhaps it isn't time to make preemptive strikes yet?

The entire point of this thread is religion vs evolution.

 

I don't see what is wrong with bringing religion up, in a thread about religion.

[Princess Artemis]

The entire point of this thread is religion vs evolution.

 

I don't see what is wrong with bringing religion up, in a thread about religion.

No, it's not. Evolution does not stand against religion, but even if it did, this wouldn't be the thread to discuss that, because this thread isn't about religion! The OP requested plain as day to take the religious discussion elsewhere. We have a thread about religion already. This isn't it.

[grimace]

No, it's not. Evolution does not stand against religion, but even if it did, this wouldn't be the thread to discuss that, because this thread isn't about religion! The OP requested plain as day to take the religious discussion elsewhere. We have a thread about religion already. This isn't it.

No..that is the opposite of what they said.

 

They just said to keep religious discussion relevant to evolution. Which it has been.

[potterwolf]

No, it's not. Evolution does not stand against religion, but even if it did, this wouldn't be the thread to discuss that, because this thread isn't about religion! The OP requested plain as day to take the religious discussion elsewhere. We have a thread about religion already. This isn't it.

I would agree that the derogatory comment about faith was probably uncalled for. However, you can't completely separate this topic from religion. It's about evolution and creationism. Creationism is inexplicably connected to religion. You'd have a pretty hard time trying to defend creationism without mentioning religious or supernatural beliefs.

 

The topic has to involve religion to some extent, but I agree that there's no reason to be overly rude to people who didn't even broach the subject of faith to begin with.

[Obscure_Trash]

Although creationism is from religion, not all religions believe in creationism and not everybody who belongs to a religion that supports creationism believes in creationism themselves. Please stay respectful of others' beliefs, even if you disagree with them.

[Cori]

As a matter of fact, I am a creationist and a religious person. However, I also value science and scientific theories. The joke about religious people rejecting scientific theories by saying 'you're wrong because God said so' is really old, really tired, and really irritating.

 

I believe that God created the universe, and I believe He facilitated the way it works--including micro and macro evolution. Who ever said God couldn't be responsible for science, too?

 

The fact of the matter is that despite all of our scientific breakthroughs and achievements, and all of the various religious texts, we're still very, very far away from understanding how the entire universe works. There are some things on this planet that we can't even explain yet. Maybe we'll never know the full truth, but the fact that there is still more knowledge to gain is what drives humanity to develop and succeed.

[JaziandCo]

As a matter of fact, I am a creationist and a religious person. However, I also value science and scientific theories. The joke about religious people rejecting scientific theories by saying 'you're wrong because God said so' is really old, really tired, and really irritating.

 

I believe that God created the universe, and I believe He facilitated the way it works--including micro and macro evolution. Who ever said God couldn't be responsible for science, too?

 

The fact of the matter is that despite all of our scientific breakthroughs and achievements, and all of the various religious texts, we're still very, very far away from understanding how the entire universe works. There are some things on this planet that we can't even explain yet. Maybe we'll never know the full truth, but the fact that there is still more knowledge to gain is what drives humanity to develop and succeed.

This and this:

 

I didn't think this was the "take potshots at religion" thread

 

Please. One can easily be religious and remember that the Bible isn't a science book. The Bible doesn't say that God snapped his fingers and POOF there everything was. The "days" in the Bible are a timespan, but not a literal day when you look back at translation. Who knows, maybe they were several billion years.

 

That said, it's really frustrating when people see and understand the process of selective breeding, and then they go "I DON'T BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION"... really never ceases to amaze me.

[philpot123]

That said, it's really frustrating when people see and understand the process of selective breeding, and then they go "I DON'T BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION"... really never ceases to amaze me.

 

Disbelief in Darwinistic Theory of Evolution as an explanation for the diversity of life does not mean ignorance of or disbelief in basic genetics, mutations, and selective breeding. I thought we discussed this already? Because I'll happily say I DON'T BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION.

[potterwolf]

The "days" in the Bible are a timespan, but not a literal day when you look back at translation. Who knows, maybe they were several billion years.

Debatable. I would contest that the day-age theory doesn't make as much sense considering the passages go something like "it was evening and it was morning: the first day" or something like that. Why mention the evening and morning of a metaphorical day?

 

Anyways, it doesn't really matter. The point is, religion and evolution do not have to be in direct conflict, but when you bring creationism into the mix, there's going to be a lot of overlap into religion.

 

Disbelief in Darwinistic Theory of Evolution as an explanation for the diversity of life does not mean ignorance of or disbelief in basic genetics, mutations, and selective breeding. I thought we discussed this already?  Because I'll happily say I DON'T BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION.

 

Woah, woah, woah, what? Phil? You?

 

If you accept the current understanding of genetics and mutation and stuff, what about evolutionary theory do you not accept?

[grimace]

Anyways, it doesn't really matter. The point is, religion and evolution do not have to be in direct conflict

Agreed. I don't know what people can't just ignore the whole days thing, and say whichever god just influenced evolution.

Theres a bunch of other impossible stuff in the bible that no one is really adamant about being true (lol noah's ark), why not include evolution in there as well?

[potterwolf]

Agreed. I don't know what people can't just ignore the whole days thing, and say whichever god just influenced evolution.

Theres a bunch of other impossible stuff in the bible that no one is really adamant about being true (lol noah's ark), why not include evolution in there as well?

Well, a lot of people used to take the whole Bible literally, but as we learn more an more, people begin to interpret passages as being more metaphorical or symbolic. Evolutionary theory is just one area where people have been able to get enough of a foothold to continue believing in literal biblical creationism.

 

I think the idea of human evolution is repulsive enough to some people that they're able to deny it and accept the biblical version without much issue, as opposed to Noah's Ark and other stories.

[Princess Artemis]

Debatable. I would contest that the day-age theory doesn't make as much sense considering the passages go something like "it was evening and it was morning: the first day" or something like that. Why mention the evening and morning of a metaphorical day?

Since this isn't the religion thread, I'll just say: Metaphorical evenings and mornings for metaphorical days isn't so hard to understand. That's what metaphors have in them, metaphors.

 

Woah, woah, woah, what? Phil? You?

 

If you accept the current understanding of genetics and mutation and stuff, what about evolutionary theory do you not accept?

 

He explained earlier in this thread, but I'll try to explain too, just for kicks. Understanding and accepting that mutations and genetics work the way they do and natural selection does cause things like finch beaks to change shape based on the flowers they eat from does not automatically make it acceptable that mutations and genetics and natural selection are the cause of finch beaks and flowers in the first place.

[potterwolf]

He explained earlier in this thread, but I'll try to explain too, just for kicks. Understanding and accepting that mutations and genetics work the way they do and natural selection does cause things like finch beaks to change shape based on the flowers they eat from does not automatically make it acceptable that mutations and genetics and natural selection are the cause of finch beaks and flowers in the first place.

Oh, so it's the micro, but not macro thing? I gotcha.

 

I can totally see where that idea comes from, but it's been shown that speciation occurs right? And, different species of animals appear to have adapted to their native environments on a large scale, just like the finches' beaks. I mean, if natural selection can change the shape/size/functionality of a finch's beak over many generations, why is it so impossible that a finch's beak was evolved from something completely different many, many, many generations ago?