Denial of evolution III

[fedr808]

I am fed up to my eyeballs (and now, it seems, fedr808 up to my eyeballs) with this persistent misunderstanding of the relevance and misinterpretation of the results of the Miller-Urey experiment.

The experiment used a reducing atmosphere. There is now general agreement that a reducing atmosphere was not present on the early Earth.

The experiment produced only five amino acids with pretty low yields, not the fourteen or fifteen you are claiming.

The importance of the experiment was that it represented a change in mindset in relation to the origin of life, demonstrating for the first time that it was feasible to investigate that origin experimentally. That makes it a landmark experiment. The actual results are disappointing and largely irrelevant.

My apologies than. Butyou gotta admit, 5 is a definite start, and considering that the earth is around 2-4 ish billion years old (Im pretty sure), that seems to give a lot more time to develop a couple more amino acids.

I think the results are significant.
It shows that there is irrefutable proof that evolution can happen.

 

[fedr808]

Yes but once, dead the air does no good. Everything is there but there is no life.


This tells me that science really has no idea how life actually started. Science could break down bread to all of it elements, and theoretically say if these elements came together just right would would have a loaf of bread. But we know it takes inteligence to make it happen.
Besides there is a problem with this whole idea, of experiments. And that is, science doing the experiments only shows the creative side of the results. In other words, science preparing the materials and mixing them in a lab , only shows that scientists can create life in a lab. The experiment does not show that life could have happened on it's own. Just like the bread example. For science to show that life could happen on it's own, they have to be no part of it. Just an observer. The earth is not a good place for that because even science say they have not found all life that is here yet.
Yah but neither has religion. Science needs to find it some place else and then prove it was not created.there is the beauty of sciency, nothing is a fact, everything is a theory The other thing is that science say it took millions or more yearsbillion, but why do you need an exact date? There would be no way we could measure an exact date, so to be accurate science would have to do the experiment that lasted that long, with all the differing conditions that would happen over that period of time.Okay, how bout we freeze your ass in a chamber for the next 4 billion years of our experiment and than wake you up?
So science doing the experiments even if they succeed, shows intelligence was involved. Unless they don't mind showing how the creator might have done it."the creator" mind being more specific. Anyways, what is G-d? Where did G-d come from? Why would G-d bother with us?

Now this forum is about evolution it'self. So... I was wondering at what point does science say evolution started?Around a few billion years ago. If you assume ( to assume is not very scienctific) there was life. What was that life , and what did it evolve into?Your trying to disprove us YOU need to define life not us

I apologize hay, I obviously forgot that you and the vatican were there 13 someodd billion years ago to document how exactly the earth started.

What you are saying is "you have a good theory about how the world started"
But Im gonna believe something some old man in a cave pulled out of his ass because it sounds like fun.

 

[stereologist]

Hat_you, I said it before and I guess I'll have to tell you the same. There are extensive areas of rock that were formed in oceans. These over large areas of places like - right here in US. The interesting thing about these rocks is that they are full of all sorts of life. What is obviously missing? Fish. An ocean with no fish! I'm not talking lake, or, pond, but an ocean.

So once there were no fish, yet the oceans are full of life. There are fish today. The types of life have changed on earth. This change is called evolution. So evolution is a fact and now we develop theories to explain the fact of evolution.

There are a lot, and I mean a lot, of very smart people here that understand the material and better yet are adept at explaining.

 

[786]

There may be none definable.

There is some evidence that the human line recrossed with a chimpanzee progenitor briefly some time after the early separation.

Have you ever seen a phylogeny? (-These questions are in preparation to an argument, so be careful )

If yes, do you know what a node is?

If yes, do you know what the node represents?

Peace be unto you

 

[synthesizer-patel]

This tells me that science really has no idea how life actually started. Science could break down bread to all of it elements, and theoretically say if these elements came together just right would would have a loaf of bread. But we know it takes inteligence to make it happen.

Probably not - what we know as bread today is largely indistinguishable from bread just a few hundred years ago - the evolution of bread was largely a series of accidents, experiments, and trial and error over long periods of time within many different human cultures - from the discovery of the use of heat and abrasion to making food more easily digestible, to the addition of yeast or other rising mediums, and the perfecting of baking techniques and equipment.
All took time, happened in small steps, and required extensive trial and error and even accident to make what we know today as a loaf of bread - in fact in much the same way that evolution works.
Therefore your bread analogy fits better within an analogy of how evolution works than an explanation of creationism

Sorry - but I did tell you it was a bad analogy

the rest of your post is just rambling word salad and brings nothing coherent, let alone useful to the discussion so we can safely ignore it.

Instead, how about answering my previous request.

give us a logical and chronological step by step list of the facts you learned that lead you to decude that creation is a valid hypothesis.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

My apologies than. Butyou gotta admit, 5 is a definite start, and considering that the earth is around 2-4 ish billion years old (Im pretty sure), that seems to give a lot more time to develop a couple more amino acids.

I think the results are significant.
It shows that there is irrefutable proof that evolution can happen.

Your coming close to making the same error that is common with the fundaligionaloonies -you appear to be conflating abiogenesis with evolution.

That said I will defend some of your points - the Miller Urey experiments were not just important for the reasons that Ophiolite gave - they are important because they show that the "building blocks of life" can form spontaneously and abiotically - ultimately of course the experiment produced them in the wrong conditions, but even so that was a significant milestone and changed our mindset into realising that this was a potentially researchable subject.

 

[hay_you]

“
Originally Posted by hay_you
This tells me that science really has no idea how life actually started. Science could break down bread to all of it elements, and theoretically say if these elements came together just right would would have a loaf of bread. But we know it takes inteligence to make it happen.
”
Probably not - what we know as bread today is largely indistinguishable from bread just a few hundred years ago - the evolution of bread was largely a series of accidents, experiments, and trial and error over long periods of time within many different human cultures - from the discovery of the use of heat and abrasion to making food more easily digestible, to the addition of yeast or other rising mediums, and the perfecting of baking techniques and equipment.
All took time, happened in small steps, and required extensive trial and error and even accident to make what we know today as a loaf of bread - in fact in much the same way that evolution works.
Therefore your bread analogy fits better within an analogy of how evolution works than an explanation of creationism

Sorry - but I did tell you it was a bad analogy

the rest of your post is just rambling word salad and brings nothing coherent, let alone useful to the discussion so we can safely ignore it.

Instead, how about answering my previous request.

give us a logical and chronological step by step list of the facts you learned that lead you to decude that creation is a valid hypothesis.

About the bread, it is a good analogy. This is what you said.

the evolution of bread was largely a series of accidents, experiments, and trial and error over long periods of time within many different human cultures - from the discovery of the use of heat and abrasion to making food more easily digestible, to the addition of yeast or other rising mediums, and the perfecting of baking techniques and equipment.

All of this experimentation is from intelligence, not that it happened on it's own. Do you see the point? An intelligence takes the elements and makes something, from that. Intelligence can make something more than 'natural' ways can. Man at this point can not create life ( he doesn't have enough knowledge to do that yet), but man can make things like a motorcycle. Theoretically all the elements are here on the earth, but it takes intelligence to make it. The bread analogy is good one. Because it only happens with intelligence, and it is more like 'Natural' things.

 

[Dywyddyr]

All of this experimentation is from intelligence, not that it happened on it's own. Do you see the point?

You haven't got a point.
We us intelligence to estimate what conditions were already like, way back at the start, and THEN we set things up the way they were (to the best of our knowledge).
The intelligence is used to discover what those conditions could have been on their own.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

All of this experimentation is from intelligence, not that it happened on it's own. Do you see the point?

No its a bad analogy - beause bread isnt alive - it doesnt behave like a living thing, so to describe its manufacture in a way that is analogous to a living thing will ultimately lead to the analogy falling apart - just as it has done in your case.

the closest fit for the development of bread starting from humans eating raw grains up to what we recognise as bread today more closely matches how evolution works - namely trial and error - but yes - its still an analogy that falls apart when you examine it - just not quite as quickly as yours does.

So - now that we have abandoned your word salad, now that we have abandoned your mistaken attempts to conflate evolution with abiogenesis, and now that we have pointed out that the use of analogy is unhelpful to your argument, can we please get to somethign of some actual substance - like for example the bit where you answer the question I have asked you?

 

[hay_you]

Hat_you, I said it before and I guess I'll have to tell you the same. There are extensive areas of rock that were formed in oceans. These over large areas of places like - right here in US. The interesting thing about these rocks is that they are full of all sorts of life. What is obviously missing? Fish. An ocean with no fish! I'm not talking lake, or, pond, but an ocean.

So once there were no fish, yet the oceans are full of life. There are fish today. The types of life have changed on earth. This change is called evolution. So evolution is a fact and now we develop theories to explain the fact of evolution.

There are a lot, and I mean a lot, of very smart people here that understand the material and better yet are adept at explaining.

Really you have to go back even further. Here is a question do you understand no beginning? I do not. I really think there is a limitation, in mans thinking. We need a beginning. If there were no material in space, where would it start where would it end? What was before God? What was before a material universe, if it was energy , where did that come from?
The idea of science and of a God both have the same problem , of no beginning!

In creation life comes from a creator, also the material universe. He has to have no beginning on one hand we can't accept anything else, on the other hand we can't understand that.
In science you have the same problem , there has to be a start some place or some how. So science just has to accept that also.

But evidence we have so far from science or any where else, is that life comes from life. We don't know anything different than that.
So science has to go against the evidence we have so far on this earth. To go along with this science doesn't know how the material has come together to actually be life.
Science has made an assumption with really no facts to back it up. What science actually has here is a faith that science will be proved correct in the future. This is the same for many religions.

 

[Grim_Reaper]

About the bread, it is a good analogy. This is what you said.

All of this experimentation is from intelligence, not that it happened on it's own. Do you see the point? An intelligence takes the elements and makes something, from that. Intelligence can make something more than 'natural' ways can. Man at this point can not create life ( he doesn't have enough knowledge to do that yet), but man can make things like a motorcycle. Theoretically all the elements are here on the earth, but it takes intelligence to make it. The bread analogy is good one. Because it only happens with intelligence, and it is more like 'Natural' things.

Man can create life it is called cloning but the Chruch people dont like that as it seems to infringe on the God area a bit. Man can create new forms of life as well using Genitic coding and cloning.

 

[John99]

the Miller Urey experiments were not just important for the reasons that Ophiolite gave - they are important because they show that the "building blocks of life" can form spontaneously and abiotically - ultimately of course the experiment produced them in the wrong conditions, but...

then what happened?

 

[Dywyddyr]

In science you have the same problem , there has to be a start some place or some how. So science just has to accept that also.

Science has (generally) accepted that. It's called the Big Bang.

So science has to go against the evidence we have so far on this earth.

Science isn't going against any evidence.
It takes the start of life as a given fact.

Science has made an assumption with really no facts to back it up.

Where?
What assumption?

What science actually has here is a faith that science will be proved correct in the future. This is the same for many religions.

No, science says "this works, now. We may or may not get more evidence. We may or may not get the "final" answers".
Science is comfortable with the idea that it doesn't know everything and can't explain everything. Which is the opposite of religion.
Science is comfortable with the fact that it's an on-going process and that something may come along tomorrow that effectively re-writes the entire book. Which is the opposite of religion.

 

[hay_you]

You haven't got a point.
We us intelligence to estimate what conditions were already like, way back at the start, and THEN we set things up the way they were (to the best of our knowledge).
The intelligence is used to discover what those conditions could have been on their own.

Ok I understand that. But intelligence tells us that bread needs a creator, it does not just happen on it's own. But theoretically it could. It is just elements from the earth and really not that complected, compared to a cell. Once you discover how it was made, then it doesn't seem too big of a deal, but it has taken science many years of research to come as far as they have. And there will be many more years, before they might find out how to do it. But that all has taken intelligence to do. The condition are good on the earth now for making bread, but it still doesn't happen on it's own.
The point is,that, life comes from life, we have no other evidence.

 

[(Q)]

The point is,that, life comes from life, we have no other evidence.

Correction. You with your bible in hand have no evidence.

 

[Dywyddyr]

But intelligence tells us that bread needs a creator, it does not just happen on it's own.

Still missing the point.
We know bread needs a creator because WE created it.
Which has NO bearing whatsoever on the origin of life.

The point is,that, life comes from life, we have no other evidence.

And no evidence for any "god" either. Science doesn't "do" mythical beings it does science. Hence the experiments.

 

[hay_you]

Man can create life it is called cloning but the Chruch people dont like that as it seems to infringe on the God area a bit. Man can create new forms of life as well using Genitic coding and cloning.

If science thinks this is true, then science doesn't know what creation is.
What I mean is, cloning is taking ( ready created life) and changing it. It is not a creation, it it's self. It is taking created life and playing with it.
Creation is taking some 'dirt' and making human or animal from it. Science can not, make life from none life, maybe at some point they maybe able to, but even then it would be creation, it doesn't show it could happen on it's own.

 

[(Q)]

Creation is taking some 'dirt' and making human or animal from it. Science can not, make life from none life, maybe at some point they maybe able to, but even then it would be creation, it doesn't show it could happen on it's own.

Hilarious. You're easily swayed to believe in some impossible magic (taking some 'dirt' and making human), but not the same process that gives you everything you have today.

 

[hay_you]

Science has (generally) accepted that. It's called the Big Bang.


Science isn't going against any evidence.
It takes the start of life as a given fact.


Where?
What assumption?


No, science says "this works, now. We may or may not get more evidence. We may or may not get the "final" answers".
Science is comfortable with the idea that it doesn't know everything and can't explain everything. Which is the opposite of religion.
Science is comfortable with the fact that it's an on-going process and that something may come along tomorrow that effectively re-writes the entire book. Which is the opposite of religion.

The big bang is even under question because, some are now saying there is some order to that. So we will have to see what happens in the future with sciences understanding of that. The question is also where did the material come from, for the universe?
The assumption is that life started on it's own and a creator was not needed. It is very seldom that I ever hear science say creation is possible.
The evidence we have is that life comes from life, you have to go against that evidence to say anything else. Science is breaking the ideal of facts first, and go where the facts take you. To say life just started up , takes a blind type of faith that is more than many religions.

 

[Grim_Reaper]

If science thinks this is true, then science doesn't know what creation is.
What I mean is, cloning is taking ( ready created life) and changing it. It is not a creation, it it's self. It is taking created life and playing with it.
Creation is taking some 'dirt' and making human or animal from it. Science can not, make life from none life, maybe at some point they maybe able to, but even then it would be creation, it doesn't show it could happen on it's own.

Dude that is not possible to make something from nothing there has to be something there in order for the reaction to take hold. Now if the bible said God jerked off on the ground and then took the dirt and made something it then may have a bit of credibility to it but it dont say that.