3
   

In Science We Trust: Evolution Creates Life

 
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Jan, 2017 01:09 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

You haven't offered me any evidence Oristar. You just keep making more and more unfounded claims. And now you are making them loudly.

Let's add to the list

1. You now claim "Life is either created by God, or created by evolution." This is clearly untrue (even forgetting the fact that you haven't supported your claim that evolution creates life). There are lots of possible options other than the two you provide. You can have a God that uses evolution. Or you could have a mechanism that doesn't have either God or evolution... something else maybe.

2. You claim that "almost all" scientists reject God. Your own link says that the number is 72% of scientists. Is 72% really "almost all"?

3. You haven't provided a single link to a scientist who says that evolution creates life. Scientists say that evolution explains the development of species from earlier lifeforms. But I have yet to see the claim that "evolution creates life".



You are completely missing the point Oristar. I agree with you that evolution is correct as a scientific theory. I don't believe that there is any other theory, or even conjecture, that comes close to explaining the evidence. And, for the record, I am an atheist.

My point is that even if you agree with me on your conclusions, I am still going to point out when your reasoning is bogus.

In addition to your bogus reasoning, you also are making claims that are not only unscientific and unfounded, they are dangerous and prejudice.

When you claim that "evolution creates life", you are simply misunderstanding a scientific fact. Most people don't care.

When you claim that our society is based on scientific reasoning it is more dangerous. You are ignoring the religious and philisophical foundations of our society (and I am not just talking about Christianity, but also about our unscientific belief in universal truths like human rights and equality).

When you claim that societies which don't adhere to scientific truth (and particularly our unscientific interpretation of the moral implications of scientific truth) don't prosper... you are dangerously wrong.

You are basically setting the state for cultural imperialism.

So yes, I accept the scientific view of evolution as the explanation for the development of the myriad species of life on Earth.

But I reject your idea that this has anything to say about philosophy, or religion, or what makes a successful society.
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Jan, 2017 08:30 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

I am an atheist.


maxdancona wrote:

You can have a God that uses evolution


Funny, an atheist can have a God that uses evolution!

How hypocritical! A bogus atheist.

Francis Collins agrees with the theory of evolution. He thinks that the evolution is guided by God. But he candidly admits that he is a Christian, not an atheist. I admire his sincerity.

A true atheist will never ridicule the notion of "In Science We Trust." Yet you scorn the notion as nonsense. Your symptom of Trumpized thinking pattern gets increasingly worse, Max.


oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Jan, 2017 09:00 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

sorry but youre wrong. Chemical "evolution" is not recognized as a pre-biotic concept.
Its just a term of convenience.
Creation and EVolution describe two totally different realms of biology.
You my wish to continue some kind of argument but Im on pretty good ground here.


You've missed the point. Reread my title:

In Science We Trust: Evolution Creates Life

Life is the research subject of evolutionary science. Life is actually operating completely according to scientific laws. Stephen Hawking, a true atheist, upholds this notion in his The Grand Design. It is based on the notion that I said "Evolution creates life." The research of the details of how life arose from non-living materials is still underway.



maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Jan, 2017 09:30 pm
@oristarA,
I think the problem is that you are misunderstanding basic logic. I am making a hypothetical argument. These both can be true simultaneously.

1) I am an atheist. This is simply a statement my personal belief that there is no god.

2) It is a possibility that a hypothetical God could use evolution. I made this observation to counter a fallacious argument that you made. You stated incorrectly that there are only two possibilities (God or Evolution). I was only pointing out that there are several possibilities. Enumerating possibilities is not a statement of opinion or belief.

You can judge for yourself what a "True Atheist" is. (Actually the term amuses me. I was wondering why the Atheist Board of True Atheism hasn't sent me my official True Atheist membership card.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

I am a scientist. I am merely pointing out that your statements are logically incorrect. That is what every scientist is trained to do.

maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Jan, 2017 09:34 pm
@oristarA,
Could you please provide a quote where Richard Dawkins says that evolution creates life? I Googled for it... and couldn't find any any Dawkins quote that even comes close to saying that.

Dawkins isn't infallable, so even if he did say that it would still be open to questioning (as every scientific statement is), but I don't think he even said it.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Jan, 2017 10:54 pm
@oristarA,
Quote:
In Science We Trust: Evolution Creates Life


Youre making absolutely no sense. Youve got yourelf in a corner so younow try some Hawking obfuscation. Hawking isnt a biochemist, his ideas are his but it doesnt mean he knows of what he speaks in this matter either.

I remain unimpressed and unconvinced that youve said anything profound.

See ya
0 Replies
 
TomTomBinks
 
  3  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2017 01:19 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
I was wondering why the Atheist Board of True Atheism hasn't sent me my official True Atheist membership card

We mailed your membership card last month. If you haven't received it by now you'll have to send in another application.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2017 08:29 am
@TomTomBinks,
I got my True Scotsman card a lot faster and with much less hassle.

Just saying.
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  0  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2017 01:20 am

Hawking's English skill (not to mention his profound scientific knowledge) is excellent. What a shame that the American hick who speaks broken English dares to look down on him.
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2017 01:39 am
@oristarA,
Me like Hawking muchly. Him speak da trut' about evoluting da life forms.
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2017 02:47 am
@edgarblythe,
Yeah, Hawking is truly a genius in science. Led by your heart, you'll find the truth.
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2017 10:07 am
@oristarA,
there's a scientific definition of biological evolution that has proved to be very useful in biology. It requires (by definition) populations of living organisms. Anything that preceded the formation of such populations is obviously relevant but it ain't biological evolution. Now, we could change the definition of biological evolution to include the formation of the first molecules that gave rise to living things but this would create more problems that it solves. We would still need a term for the evolution of populations by changes in the frequencies of their alleles.
-Lawrence A Moran evolutionary Biologist U of Tranna
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2017 12:56 pm
@farmerman,
I hope the creationist-inclined here will read your post and take it to heart.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2017 04:19 pm
@farmerman,
Funny that you quote Moran, Farmer, although we he says is absolutely correct. Evolution has NOTHING to say about, or anything to do with, the genesis of life itself. Its starting point comes after that, not before, or co-extensive with, the creation of life.

I say it's funny, because I seem to remember you ridiculing the guy when I posted excerpts from his blog which minimized the evolutionary significance of your beloved "natural selection."
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2017 07:15 pm
@layman,
Obviously youve not read the OP. Perhaps youre not getting enough cheese in your diet
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2017 08:03 pm
@layman,
Yes, if you've read the OP you would have had a better understanding.

And more:

Quote:

Evolution Created Life From Lifeless ‘Primordial Soup,’ Scientists Suggest

By: Clara Moskowitz, LiveScience Senior Writer
Published: 02/21/2012 10:12 AM EST on LiveScience

VANCOUVER, British Columbia — Just as species are believed to have evolved over time, the individual molecules that form the basis of life also likely developed in response to natural selection, scientists say.

Life on Earth first bloomed around 3.7 billion years ago, when chemical compounds in a “primordial soup“ somehow sparked into life, scientists suspect. But what turned sterile molecules into living, changing organisms? That’s the ultimate mystery.

By studying the evolution of not just life, but life’s building blocks as well, researchers hope to come closer to the answer.

Two become one

The molecules swimming in early Earth’s primordial soup would have been continually destroyed by ultraviolet radiation from the sun, as well as heat and other processes on the planet. [7 Theories on the Origin of Life]

But when certain special pairs of molecules combined to form a larger compound, they sometimes came out with protections that neither had alone.

“When molecules interact, they start taking on properties they don’t have as individuals, but do gain when they’re in a complex,” Robert Root-Bernstein, a physiologist at Michigan State University, said Sunday (Feb. 19) here at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. “This provides a means of natural selection.”

Molecules that could combine to gain attributes would survive longer and proliferate, while those that were more easily destroyed would fade away.

Better together

One example is the compound of glutamic acid and two glycine molecules.

Individually, each of these molecules was easily destroyed by ultraviolet radiation. But put together, they were extremely stable.

“In this case we are buffering this pair of molecules against destruction, and they would have been around much longer than other things,” Root-Bernstein said. “Very specific pairs are going to survive and others aren’t.”

Another example is the hormone epinephrine, also known as adrenaline. When combined with ascorbic acid (vitamin C), the compound is resistant to oxidation — a loss of electrons that can cause a substance to disintegrate. This is an attribute that neither possesses alone. [What Are the Ingredients of Life?]

The watchmaker problem

These chemical combinations may help explain one of the greatest mysteries of how life got started.

There’s a famous parable called the “watchmaker problem,” first described by Nobel Prize-winning economist Herbert Simon.

Imagine two watchmakers trying to assemble a watch of 1,000 pieces. The first watchmaker assembles his watch one piece at a time — he must assemble it in one sitting or it falls apart and he has to start over. The second watchmaker builds hers by first putting together small stable modules of a few pieces, and then building these up into ever-larger subconfigurations until she has a whole watch. If she is interrupted, the smaller modules don’t break down and she can resume from roughly where she started.

The second is a much more efficient way of putting together a watch, because it offers protection against having to start over from the beginning if the process is interrupted.

Building up the first organisms on Earth may have worked the same way, Root-Bernstein said.

“If you have to evolve a receptor composed of a precise ordering of 400 amino acids, it wouldn’t be possible to do it all at once,” he said. “You have to use stable modules.”

These modules are the compound molecules that have become stable by combining. If life assembled from combinations of these already-stable building blocks, rather than a random combination of raw molecules from scratch, the process would have been much more efficient.

“The difference between trying absolutely everything and trying a small number of stable modules is huge,” Root-Bernstein said. “It makes something that’s virtually impossible into something that’s very likely.”


farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2017 09:11 am
@oristarA,
The AGI (American Geological Institute), maintains a glossary of terms consistent with the associated sciences covered within the rubric.
AGI lists 3 definitions for evolution.
A. The change of a group of related organisms toward the adaptation to the environmental conditions to which theyd been exposed with the passage of time

B. The theory that life on earth has descended from a common ancestor

C.The permanent change in the form and function of organisms of successive ancestor-descendant generations or populations, over geologic time, so that the latest members of successive generations differ significantlyfrom the earliest.


Nowhere in these definitions does it mention anything about the origin of life on earth, thats not evolution.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2017 09:22 am
@farmerman,
Following the concepts of thermodynamics is quite sufficient to distinguish the origins of life v evolution, which , for all points of understanding begin when life has occurred. "Copping" some all encompassing blather is as useless as stealing pwrfectly good terms of language and adopting them for exclusive use in such disciplines as computer tech.

Anyway, the argument is as inane as the one that states that "all evolution is random"
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2017 09:23 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

[/i] Nowhere in these definitions does it mention anything about the origin of life on earth, thats not evolution.


Exactly. That's what Moran said, and I agreed. Not sure why you want to claim I don't know what I'm talking about, beyond, perhaps, your seemingly habitual inability/failure to read what I post.

Evolution is such an overused and poorly understood term that people now seem to use it to describe ( and purportedly "explain") virtually every imaginable occurrence.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2017 09:54 am
@layman,
I think youre giving yourself credit for the sunrise nd I think youve got me confused with someone else . As I recall, your past arguments that I joined were that Natural selection was a dead concept ,to which I insisted that you were truly speaking as a layman.
The discussion herein had never anything to do with anything other than the fact that abiogenesis was or was NOT a process of evolution.

Not sure where youre memory has been , maybe the holiday festivities.


Besides, agreeing with everyone all the time is dumass. I agree with much of what certain colleagues write and poo poo hosts of their other stuff. Its what we do.




0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 03:26:53