Evolution? How?

xingu wrote:

Quote:

That doesn't necessarily mean that these molecules assembled themselves from dead chemicals into complex, intricate and finely balanced living beings, does it?

Yes it does. But not in the time frame of tribal mythology.

http://www.livescience.com/history/top10_intelligent_designs.html

It does?

Let's be clear about what you are claiming. So if you put organic molecules together long enough, are you claiming that it is a given that they WILL ALWAYS assemble themselves into a living creature?

All they need is enough time? Is that your thesis?

Ok, well you don't seem to be as certain now as you were previously (earlier today). Which is it?

real life wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

real life wrote:

Pauligirl wrote:

thunder_runner32 wrote:

Yes I read it. What makes any cells stand out enough to interperet the light differently?

Well, your entire body is covered with light-sensitive cells. Your skin can detect heat radiation, can it not? What is this radiation? Infra-red light. It is easy ( for me, anyway) to see how a small mutation could lead infra-red sensitive cells to become more sensitive to shorter wavelengths of light. Also, photons of certain wavelengths are absorbed by certain pigments/chemicals, affecting the chemistry of the cell in a manner that the brain may detect.
P

In a general sense, all types of light/radiation whether it is visible light, infra-red, ultraviolet, xrays, gamma or any other may have some effect on any cells of your body, whether exterior (skin) or interior (organs). All cells are "sensitive" to these types of waves in the sense that, yes , they do react in some manner when exposed to them.

This is very far indeed from proving the 'some exterior cells of a primitive animal were so effected by visible light that the cell sent signals to the animal's brain which proved to be so beneficial to the organism to such an extent that this organism and it's subsequent descendants were better able to survive and thrive in their environment than any others of their species.''

In other words, just because the skin of your arm can tan or feel heat doesn't mean that it can generate an eye, step by step, in the skin of your descendants over a long period of time. If it could, and indeed some posters have asserted that evolution has produced just this sort of result dozens of times.....how come we don't see many creatures with quarter and half evolved eyes growing in various parts of their bodies, like say in the back of the head where it would be a real advantage, or in the hand so you could see around a corner just by reaching around it?

Near the beginning of life on Earth, in a world of totally blind creatures, a patch of cells that would enable you to tell the illumination level somewhat might be helpful. Probably decently developed eyes were already present in the first creatures which came up on dry land. I'm only guessing. The story of the evolution of eyes could be different, for all I know. I just know that a trait cannot develop unless there is an evelutionary path to it such that every step of the path is more advantageous than the previous step. Plants seem to gain some benefit just from a minor ability to detect light. Some flowers find it helpful, apparently, to be able to turn and face the sun, close at night, etc.

Since we're guessing I'll grant that your guess is a possibility. Also possible is that the ability to perceive light without distinguishing the source or cause of the light could be a DISadvantage just as easily as it could be an advantage.

If light is "seen" by a creature and it reacts by moving toward the light without knowing what is in that direction, it could move itself into the path of predators. Thus "a little knowledge" could just as easily prove a disadvantage rather than an advantage.

Once again, your finding subtle problems with my reasoning is absurd, since you then turn around and believe in magic because some ancient writings describe it.

real life wrote:

xingu wrote:

Quote:

That doesn't necessarily mean that these molecules assembled themselves from dead chemicals into complex, intricate and finely balanced living beings, does it?

Yes it does. But not in the time frame of tribal mythology.

http://www.livescience.com/history/top10_intelligent_designs.html

It does?

Let's be clear about what you are claiming. So if you put organic molecules together long enough, are you claiming that it is a given that they WILL ALWAYS assemble themselves into a living creature?

All they need is enough time? Is that your thesis?

A planetful of organic soup, energy of various sorts (e.g. lightning), and billions of years is probably sufficient most of the time.

Quote:

Ok, well you don't seem to be as certain now as you were previously (earlier today). Which is it?

Evidence points in that direction but it is not a certainity. What is certain is nothing points in the direction of Creationism.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2bDetailsoforigin.shtml

What evidence do you have that the planet was covered with this organic soup for a period of a billion years?

The evidence and the interpretation of it are two distinct things. One is data. One is inference. Can you see the difference?

interpretation as though it were part of the evidence?

xingu, We must realize the simple fact that religious people fear science, because it slowly destroys their bible and belief system. It started with their theory of the flat earth. That was followed by the young earth. That again was followed by no such thing as a world flood. Now evolution, the very science that chips away at creation. They're hanging onto their last thread, and they fear they have lived their whole life on lies. Scary, that!

Quote:

What evidence do you have that the planet was covered with this organic soup for a period of a billion years?

What evidence do you have that it wasn't? After all, didn't I present evidence that organic material is found in space, or did you forget?

Why not?

You should be able to believe in that. If you truly believe in God, then you should be able to do so too.

The only reason Darwin ever came up with the idea of evolution, because, like Isaac Newton, Darwin believed that God didn't tinker with things. He saw evidence that these animals were related, that they seemed to obviously come from the same ancestors and that God doesn't wade in every now and then to alter animals.

So he came up with evolution, it being a law that God designed, so he didn't have to wade in every now and then to tinker with the biology of animals. He, of course, like a good scientist should, tried his best not to mention God in his thesis. Then his daughter died and then he rejected the notion of God altogether, but I digress.

So, yes, Intelligent Design is possible, but it's not good science because it includes the introduction of an entity that cannot be proved by science. If you cannot prove it or even disprove it, then you cannot include it.

An odd response indeed from one who claims his position is all science, evidence, facts and so forth.

Xingu, do you really think that the presence of carbon and nitrogen in space has ANY bearing on whether living organisms were able to put themselves together from dead chemicals on Earth?

Quote:

An odd response indeed from one who claims his position is all science, evidence, facts and so forth.

Not odd at all. Unlike Creationist, science readily admits there are unknowns. That's what gives science a truth and honesty that Christian Creationist don't have.

You seem to have a very low regard for science. Could that be because it refuses to support your religious mythology?

Quote:

Xingu, do you really think that the presence of carbon and nitrogen in space has ANY bearing on whether living organisms were able to put themselves together from dead chemicals on Earth?

It's not just carbon and nitrogen. It's organic molecules. Please, if your going to discuss evolution, take the time to learn basic chemistry. There is a difference between elements and molecules. There is a difference between inorganic molecules and organic molecules.

So to answer your question, no, it does not seem feasible that life will develop if only carbon and nitrogen were found in the universe.

But I didn't say carbon and nitrogen, did I? The site I referred you to said organic molecules were found in the universe. So if you had some talent in reading comprehension and some knowledge of science your question would have been; do you really think that the presence of organic molecules in space has ANY bearing on whether living organisms were able to put themselves together from dead organic molecules on Earth?

My answer to that would be yes. There would be a far greater chance of that happening then what the Bible says.

What does their presence in space have to do with their supposed ability to assemble themselves into living organisms on Earth?

Brandon9000 wrote:

real life wrote:

xingu wrote:

Quote:

That doesn't necessarily mean that these molecules assembled themselves from dead chemicals into complex, intricate and finely balanced living beings, does it?

Yes it does. But not in the time frame of tribal mythology.

http://www.livescience.com/history/top10_intelligent_designs.html

It does?

Let's be clear about what you are claiming. So if you put organic molecules together long enough, are you claiming that it is a given that they WILL ALWAYS assemble themselves into a living creature?

All they need is enough time? Is that your thesis?

A planetful of organic soup, energy of various sorts (e.g. lightning), and billions of years is probably sufficient most of the time.

What evidence do you have that the planet was covered with this organic soup for a period of a billion years?