EESCHMan
Member
yes! end of debate!
(though you could say it's to catch dust, bacteria, etc from the air)
I'll add nipples (man)
Gops "who Don't Believe In Evolution" !!!
- Thread starter anabolicrhino
- Start date
- Status
yes! end of debate!
(though you could say it's to catch dust, bacteria, etc from the air)
I'll add nipples (man)
Nullifidian
Banned
Men have nipples because all human beings start out female. Nipples form before gender differentiation occurs during fetal development. Thus all men have nipples.
I like this thread better than the Dinosaur one. Much more rationality being used, however there are still some fallacies flying about. One very common one I'm seeing is argument from ignorance.
Argument from ignorance takes the general form as follows:
B is observable fact
A is a theory used to explain B
A does not fully explain B
therefore C
Notice here, no information is given about C. C is a catchall excuse. Basically the "magic did it" excuse. In this case, "god did it."
Here's a good example of argument from ignorance:
Scientists say dark matter and dark energy make up most of the universe
Quantum theory does not explain dark matter or dark energy
therefore dark matter and dark energy are caused by magic supergnomes from andromeda
Just because one theory does not fully explain a particular concept, does not lend any evidence whatsoever to saying "god did it." The problem typically arises because for the most part humans beings do not like saying "I don't know." They have an even bigger problem saying "no one knows." The biggest fears typically come from the unknown. Human beings have a tendency to use argument from ignorance as a way of placating these fears, when they should really just be saying "I don't know."
So, next time you read about a scientific concept that currently has no explaination, remember, it's ok to say "I don't know." If it makes you feel better you can add "yet" to the end of it. It isn't however ok to use an argument from ignorance fallacy.
EESCHMan
Member
Figure I'll post this here as well:
This is regarding the finding of a dinosaur bird fossil in China:
"In addition to its size, Gigantoraptor sported several bird-like features, such as a longer arm and more avian-like leg, not present in its relatives. The scientists say this finding sheds light on theropod (two-legged carnivorous dinosaurs) evolution leading to the emergence of birds"
The full article:
Invalid Link Removed
I guess evolution has nothing to do with this!
This is regarding the finding of a dinosaur bird fossil in China:
"In addition to its size, Gigantoraptor sported several bird-like features, such as a longer arm and more avian-like leg, not present in its relatives. The scientists say this finding sheds light on theropod (two-legged carnivorous dinosaurs) evolution leading to the emergence of birds"
The full article:
Invalid Link Removed
I guess evolution has nothing to do with this!
semper60003
New member
god is the grown man's santa clause
CNorris
Banned
The body hasnt been brilliantly designed? Wow what an ignorant and foolish statement. Anyone that isnt shocked and amazed (evolution or creationist) about the unbelievable improbability of even the most basic, self replicating form of life existing on this planet needs to study bio chemistry. The fact that even mold exists on this planet is absolutely incredible.
People have the foolish assumption that just because the conditions are right for life, that life will form. That is like saying if you take an entire car junk yard and put everything into a giant rotating ball, that eventually a self replicating car will result. SOUNDS INEVITABLE DOESNT IT!
This idea is just as foolish as saying life is inevitable. Every single experiment done in the history of the earth shows that chemical system ALWAYS move towards more disorder. The only way the dont is when energy is introduced into the system. So are you telling me that lightning striking a chemical bath and forming amino acids is the reason why human beings exist today? According to our "brilliant" scientists thats the cause of every living being on this planet you see today.
I will explain the building blocks of life to those that dont know. Life is basically built from chemicals. It is also the only example of a chemical system that has an instruction set on how to take outside energy and build incredibly complex high energy systems. Going from an atom to a cell is like going from a single transistor to the entire US's CIA computer system. And no, that is not an eggageration.
In the case of the cell, atom is the transistor. The atoms that make up life primarly carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen etc. These four elements along with others combine to make amino acids, which are the building blocks of protein. Possibly how these amino acids naturally formed is the extent to which scientists can explain the origins of life. So there is a giant gap in science. It is as big of a gap as not knowing how a group of transistors (that have no function since the computer doesnt exist) turned into a giant CIA supercomputer.
Even after these amino acids are able to form from lightning striking a chemical bath, there are 20 of them to account for. There is no reason for even one amino acid to even exist more than a few hours after lightning strikes it. It is a high energy chemical group, and its natrual place it to break down into lower energy groups.
Lets assume these amino acids can survive. All 20 of them for hundreds of years. The amino acids still have to form proteins. Proteins are highly functional biological molecules that are made up of hundreds of thousands of perfectly ordered amino acids. These amino acids make up long chains, and fold into a round molecule. If these amino acids arent perfectly ordered, the protein will unfold and come apart.
Even if somehow hundreds of thousands of proteins were to naturally form a protein, IT WOULD HAVE NO FUNCTION!. A protein is not even remotely close to being life. It can not adapt, it can not live, it can not consume energy, it can not repoduce. It would just unfold and go away. Any unbiased, open-minded person will come to the same conclusion.
Even if this protein were able to form and exist, what is its function? Its a glob of molecules. The protein is less significant than a flake of skin. Tell me how these proteins formed a cell. No one can even come remotely close. And this is giving them the benefit of the doubt that statistically impossible events have already occured to make the protein.
A cell is made of around 8 Trillion proteins molecules. These protein molecules somehow formed, and organized themselves into a miraculously complex system of 8 trillion. These sytems have layers upon layer of highly specific functionality. If even one single layer fails to function, the cell dies. And some how this cell figured out how to clone itself and form a new cell.
The functions of the most simple form of life arent even relevant, since science cant even explain how one little part in 8 trillion in a system can naturally form, what its purose is, how it survived, how it replicated.
I'm sorry I just dont have enough faith to believe in evolution. No objective and informed person should have that amount of faith. I do not go to church, I have a degree in Engineering at a public university, I do not believe the world is thousands of years old. But I do not believe Evolution is the explanation for life's existance. To those who do, I am jealous of the amount of blind faith you can have. Once science can even explain how a protein formed, let alone a single self replicating cell, I might join your faith.
CNorris
Banned
This is a great example the general public really being uneducated about the most relevant scientific question that humans face. Its really kind of scary. Read Darwin's Origin of Species. Evolution is and always has been the scientific explaination for the fomation and existense of life. I think you are confusing evolution and adaptation. Adaptation is the method of evolution, but evolution also attampts to explain the origins of life. If evolution isnt the scientific explanation of the existance of life, then none exists.
CNorris
Banned
Charles Darwin's explanation of the conditions that formed life: "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, [so] that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes".
I have also seen this explanation for the origins of life in the evolution chapter of my Biology book in High School and College. This origins of life need be be explained by evolution, or all evolutionists could believe in intelligent design. Whats to say they cant claim that god planted life on the planet, then it evolved. That is what many prominent Intelligent Designists believe. Last I checked Evolitionists furiously oppose intelligent design.
dsade
NutraPlanet Fanatic
Why not plastic animated unicorns? Why not believe like Heironymous Bosch that life and existence is traversing the devil's digestive system? Why not believe that we are all just the daydream of a gnat about to be squashed by the TRUE center of the universe....plankton.
Evolutionists (IME) are scientific in nature. Since there is no proof for the existence of god, they reject it as "not enough information to make a decision". Hypotheses about HOW life began are suggested, and we look for evidence to disprove them.
I am sure there are evolutionists who might believe in god...but it is at the expense of scientific credibility, for the most part.
CNorris
Banned
A plastic animated unicorn is as likely to have created life as is lightning striking a chemical bath, as evolutionists teach and believe. Read any school book on evolution. Its what they teach. This belief and teaching is at the expense of scientific credibility as well.
What is science is being able to recognize highly orderly, and irreducibly complex systems. If you received a signal from outer space that was the entire dictionary word for word, you wouldn't assume its by chance. It is however that event is more likely to occur than life having formed randomly. Every bit of observed evidence suggest both ideas are not only unscientific but statistically impossible. Evolutionists cant explain how a hollowed out limb that cant fly or walk became an advantage for a life form, let alone how a wing could become evolved enough to perform the incredibly complex task of taking flight. Evolution is not scientific, its an absurd theoretical reach to explain something that is unexplainable.
Tiberius
Member
They oppose intelligent design because intelligent design said all species here now were created as is and that nothing ever evolved.
Intelligent design ain't intelligent. It's the kind of stuff I'd expect a 6 year old kid to come up with to explain things. I mean, no offense, but it's really silly. It's pretty weird that sane adults believe that stuff. Might as well believe goldilocks and the 3 bears or Rumplestiltzskin or something.
And the whole argument about creation is like "what you don't have an explaination yet? That proves Santa Claus created life using a super laser beam and magical condoms!"
dsade
NutraPlanet Fanatic
These have been dealt with countless times. Do your homework.
CNorris
Banned
Dealt with? Wow. Tell me why the fossil record shows rapid and sudden changes boom out of nowhere millions of years ago, where the previous millions of years adaption was completely stagnant? How does this follow the basic tenant of evolution that life slowly and steadily evolved into what it is today. The problems with evolution are not dealt with. Scientists however have been able to successfully lie and present myths as truth to convince the simple minded sheep to have faith in the most baseless theory in science.
CNorris
Banned
Did you read my explanation on why it is absolutely absurd anyone can believe in the random formation of life? If you have and still are brainwashed into not even being able to be objective, open minded and scientific then there is no hope for you. There is absolutely NO evidence that life forming randomly even being remotely possible. This is infinately more absurd in saying that life looks as if it has been created, and there is no explanation for its existance, so I will believe it has been created. No one claims that it is a scientific belief, but believing in something that is scientifically proven impossible is even worse. You stick to your childish name calling and Santa Clause comparisons because you cant debate like a rational open minded human being. No evolutionist can debate the origins of life. The cant explain how a fish turned into a bird either, so they resort to discrediting people, lying and name calling. Sounds childish to me. Also, species adapting within a group of dogs/birds does not explain how a pile of goo became a dog/bird. Science cant even explain the existence of a protein, let alone a damn bird.
CNorris
Banned
Some people would arrive at that conclusion. I wish I could arrive at some conclusion other than lightning striking a chemical bath and creating life is impossible, and Adam and Eve didn't create all humans. Both of those beliefs take a lot of blind faith.
CNorris
Banned
I wouldn't have a problem if more scientists say that. But for them to act like life was inevitable is not scientific. I don't know how many time I've heard the theory that life should be all over the universe because its inevitable if there is another planet like earth. The exact opposite is true. Its a miracle that life exists anywhere. If scientists were honest more of them would say "I don't know"
Darwin theorized about evolution before we had any clue about the extreme complexity of life. Back in Darwin's time, they thought cells were basically atoms, and organs were molecules. Its too bad the science on the origins of life hasn't advance to compensate for our new knowledge.
anabolicrhino
Well-known member
Darwin was a "gate keeper" He tried to keep mankind from the real truth- Alien intervention! DNA splicing hybrid humanoid species!
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
...of course you file this under I don't know? maybe !
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
...of course you file this under I don't know? maybe !
Tiberius
Member
The Adam and Eve thing doesn't take faith, man. It takes willful ignorance. There's a difference. I think.
And what's with the "lightning striking a chemical bath" thing? No scientist thinks that is what happened as far as I know. I suppose you could find one but that doesn't make it the standard. Fact is there is no standard theory on how life initially formed. You saying scientists haven't said "I don't know" is also ignorant. That's what scientists say about ANYTHING they haven't proven.
Look just cus you don't know something doesn't mean you can't test out a theory. But you cna't have a theory if you can't test it. At the very least it has to be mathematically testable. "Poof, there it is!" ain't testable.
I don't know what the current theorIES are on how life started. Heck first off you have to start by saying what life actually is cus it's kind of an arbitrary thing we've defined. So are species. We created the concept of species in order to catelog **** easier.
As for the whole random thing, turns out that we aren't the first universe. Some guy just developed a time model using "quantum loop dynamics" or something that can model the "big bang". Turns out all the constants in the universe, like the charge on an electron, the charge on a proton, and even what particles exist was likely completely different before the big bang. Same with before that and before that. This new model shows that we're likely the aftermath of an infinite chain of collapses and expantions. This time things turned out such that you've got life. Hard to predict what happened before. For example if the charge on an electron was higher, no black holes would be posisble and stars would never collpase. If it was lower, stars would never form; they would collapse immediately into black holes.
Anywya, I read a long article about it. It's pretty out there and gave me a headache. But that whole "random chance was too slim a chance" is about as bogus an argument as it gets. People win the lottery too even though those chances are slim, and with seeing as how now it looks like we've had an inifnite number of universes before us, seems even more "likely" we'd eventually wind up with this "version" of the universe. Actually it means it was inevitable.
CNorris
Banned
.............................
Tiberius
Member
Can you please just use the damn quote feature?
[ quote] insert here [ /quote]
Anyway if you're going to reject science, then please stop using the fruits of its labor. Just pray to god or something and have fiath he'll magically conjure **** for you. While you're at it, make sure you continue to pray that God keeps you placed on the earth instead of letting you magically drift off the planet. You know, cus that whole "theory of gravity" is just a theory too. Which mean in your mind its wrong. Because you seem to have faith that scientific theories are all wrong. You seem to be assured that the answer to every last thing is "god did it."
Why don't you be a little less boring and come up with something a little more snazzy. Like "The snuffaluffagous did it."
CNorris
Banned
Way to debate the issue at hand! You fell back on the typical bull**** that most people of your ilk do when presented with solid evidence, you resort to emotional name calling and completely ignore the evidence at hand. Go hide in your corner like the little child you are, but the truth wont go away.
Gravity is FAR different than evolution and the origins of life. Gravity is actually supported time after time with empirical evidence. There is absolutely NO evidence that life can arise from a chemical bath randomly over any amount of time. And there is no credible evidence that a fish/reptile could evolve into a bird.
I never said god did anything, I said IT IS SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE BY ALL OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE FOR LIFE TO RANDOMLY FORM.
I know this is very disturbing to your faith, but you have to accept it. And if you want to reply, please be intelligent next time and dont resort to childish name calling. Its proving that you are losing this debate.
Sunder
Active member
It's an interesting topic, but it's very heavily dependent upon geographical location.
It seems that most of the ppl on this board are from the United States. I have to say, the US has the largest amount of bible thumpers that I've ever seen. I thought Canada was bad - but not even close.
What about those Russians? All to hell?
What about those Chinese? All to hell?
What about those Japanese? All to hell?
All those countries still seem to be "ok", and don't necessarily believe in the same thing as a select group in North America do.
And what's with this singular "god" thing? Why not multiple gods? The Greeks, the Romans, the native American Indians - all multiple gods.
It's the Cylons that believe in a singular god, not the Colonials. Remember - the Cylons are supposed to be the bad guys...unless we're actually the real bad guys.
2 of my friends actually told me that they do not believe Neanderthals ever existed, lol. Seriously. Not sure what they think about dinosaurs...kinda tune them out when they go on their tirades.
I just tell them that god told me specifically that they existed. Do not question the will of god. I believe it - and since god controls everything - he/they are the ones that told me so.
Everyone can believe what they want - just don't try to cram it down my throat, and I won't cram the truth down theirs. Besides, we all know that Gauis Baltar is Jesus - just wait and see.
It seems that most of the ppl on this board are from the United States. I have to say, the US has the largest amount of bible thumpers that I've ever seen. I thought Canada was bad - but not even close.
What about those Russians? All to hell?
What about those Chinese? All to hell?
What about those Japanese? All to hell?
All those countries still seem to be "ok", and don't necessarily believe in the same thing as a select group in North America do.
And what's with this singular "god" thing? Why not multiple gods? The Greeks, the Romans, the native American Indians - all multiple gods.
It's the Cylons that believe in a singular god, not the Colonials. Remember - the Cylons are supposed to be the bad guys...unless we're actually the real bad guys.
2 of my friends actually told me that they do not believe Neanderthals ever existed, lol. Seriously. Not sure what they think about dinosaurs...kinda tune them out when they go on their tirades.
I just tell them that god told me specifically that they existed. Do not question the will of god. I believe it - and since god controls everything - he/they are the ones that told me so.
Everyone can believe what they want - just don't try to cram it down my throat, and I won't cram the truth down theirs. Besides, we all know that Gauis Baltar is Jesus - just wait and see.
B5150
Legend
I prefer it when you liken this man to a rainbow unicorn. I think it dignifies both of us.
B5150
Legend
Classic AND Intelligent!!! :thumbsup:
dsade
NutraPlanet Fanatic
I prefer the leprechaun with marionette strings...it reminds me of Lucky Charms (and the fact that yummy cereal is not on my diet anymore
)
B5150
Legend
:clap2:Oh yes, much more dignified.
I prefer the leprechaun with marionette strings...it reminds me of Lucky Charms (and the fact that yummy cereal is not on my diet anymore
Tiberius
Member
Wrong.
1) You haven't defined "life" so you cna't very well make any claims of what is or isn't possible with it.
2) We are completely unaware of what the most elementary form of life actually is and/or was
3) We are still unaware of many of the chemical processes that occur at that low a level
4) We have yet to identify all the possible forms of life.
I could list more but what's the point. It's not like you'll pay any attention. Listen, you can't just state **** and expect people to believe it to be true. That's not how the real world works. Well, maybe relgious nutjobs might go for that kind of garbage but intelligent people who actually are capable of reason will hear you and respond with "back up your claims."
I gotta say though I am gonna LOVE when they find life on Europa and put a big fat solid "stfu" to all the creationists.
CNorris
Banned
I already backed up my claim. If you think about what it will take to randomly form life and understand the chemistry, all scientific evidence points towards life being randomly formed is absolutely impossible. Its not a random claim, scientists are plagued by this fact and the truly open minded and scientific ones hate this fact because evolution begins to fall apart before it starts. There are two types of evolutionists: Those that dont understand bio chemistry, and those that ignore what it is telling us.
Tiberius
Member
What part of "creation of life has nothing to do with evolution" don't you get?
Evolution is about how life gets from point A to point B, not how it started. Evolution means change. Not creation.
Besides that, your still falling back on the "I don't know so that means it's magic." That **** is just ignorant. There's no other word to describe it, it's the epitome of ignorant.
CNorris
Banned
I dont know how many times I have to repeat for you to understand it. Evolution is the the theory of how all life got from point A to point B. Point A is when life was a bunch of molecules, point B is as you see it today. Once again Darwin, my science text book, my brofessor in college all taught the origins of life as part of evolution. If evolution doesnt explain the existance of life, then what scientific theory does? Why do people claim that evolution proves there is no god? If you cant explain why life exists natrually then how an ameoba turned into a fish doesnt matter. This is why evolutionists are so desperate to explore other planets and moons.
If you came home and there were 300 rocks on your driveway fully spelling out your name, would you assume it was natural? Of course not, you would think your neighborhood kids were goofing around or something. You dont know this as a fact, and unless you had a video camera or witness you would have no proof. There was no video camera or witness at the time life first appeared on this planet of course, so I have a belief. Life is far to complex and its natural formation disobeys the most fundamental laws of science. My assumption is there is a greater force outside science to explain for this. It is not ignorant, its a belief. The ignorant ones are the people that claim Adam and Eve were born 4000 years ago and the people that believe life formed out of lightning striking a chemical bath. Both are impossible to be true by every shred of scientific evidence we have.
My assumption of a force greater than humanity is based on observable evidece.
1) There is no effect without a cause.
2) Human life is the greated effect on this planet, and science does not have a cause to explain it.
3) Life shows far too much complexity to have naturally formed.
Since there is no scientific explanation, I choose to look outside of science. This does not mean I ignore science. It means my belief is that science is not the know all and end all to every question there is to ask. Some of the greatest minds on this planet chose to look outside of science for some answers. Einsten for example commonly referenced a creator, and claimed the laws of science were too perfect to not have a great cause. I believe those that claim everything can be explained by something that clearly doesnt explain everything to be ignorant.
Tiberius
Member
How many times do I have to explain it. Evolution is about the transition of life from one form to another. A bunch of molecules hanging around doing jack **** IS NOT LIFE.
Evolution addresses what life does from one generation to the next. It starts off with the assumption that life exists. How hard is that for you to understand?
CNorris
Banned
Really? A bunch of molecules hanging around doing jack **** IS NOT LIFE. OK CAPTAIN OBVIOUS! I never said a bunch of molecules is life.
You obviously don't understand what I am saying and you don't understand evolution. The theory of evolution is where life randomly formed in the sea as an algae or bacteria, then a plant, then a fish, then a reptile and on and on and it is supposed to explain for every ounce of life on this planet.
There is no convincing you of this simple fact and you haven't even answered by question about what the scientific explanation for the existence of life is. Im done posting here. You can lead a horse to water but you cant make him drink.
rockhard_4eva
Banned
Chrisopher Hitchens. Read his book.
I am so HAPPY I LIVE IN CANADA where there is a separation of Church and State.
Also, the great show called Bull**** had an episode on intelligent design. Watch it.
Tiberius
Member
Evolution does not address the formation of life!!!! Why. The ****. Can you not. UNDERSTAND THAT?!
Evolution starts off with life, it does not start off with basic crud. It STARTS WITH LIFE ALREADY FORMED.
Repeat after me:
Evolution does not address the creation of life.
Evolution does not address the creation of life.
Evolution does not address the creation of life.
rockhard_4eva
Banned
Ignorance is BLISS
People like you are more dangerous to freedom and democracy than the "terrorists"
People like you are more dangerous to freedom and democracy than the "terrorists"
rockhard_4eva
Banned
In a country, if there are enough conservative religious people, you can throw freedom out the window. That is scary.
Tiberius
Member
You completely misunderstand my statement if you liked the episode of Bull****.
Evolution is a theory about how life has evolved from one state to another. It has absolutely nothing to do with how life initially formed. How life formed is the theory of biogenesis. There are a ton of theories of biogenesis none of which so far have really panned out. We need a lot more information before we can form a solid theory. One of the biggest challenges is creating an environment for any experiments to be done since it is nearly impossible to create an environment here on earth where there are literally zero bacteria.
I've read that a great comment about this. Something along the lines of "trying to discredit evolution by saying it doesn't address the creation of life is like complaining the theory of gravity doesn't work because it doesn't explain what my cousin had for breakfast yesterday." Neither have anything to do with the other.
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
CNorris
Banned
Apparently scientists must have modified the theory of evolution because of their shortcomings of explaining the existance of life on earth.
Too bad they will have to keep modifying it for the theory to work since they can't explain how the **** a wing evolved from a leg. How is a worthless stub of a limb more useful to a creature if it can barely walk? If it is not an advantage for survival, it doesnt follow the most basic laws of evolution. A stub of a limb is not even remotely close to ever being able to fly, and can barely help the creature walk, it cant defend the creature. I would like to hear one credible detailed explanation of even how this might be even remotely possible.
CNorris
Banned
Ignorant and closed minded people that cant even be intellectually honest and blindly follow myths flat out lies are the most dangerous threat to any society. Its amazing to me that anyone can get so up in arms for someone pointing out very simple shortcomings of a scientific theory. This wouldnt happen if we were arguing a new form of mathematics. I guess people dont base their religion on math. People base their religion on Darwin as much as any holy book.
dsade
NutraPlanet Fanatic
Apparently you did not do your homework after being told. Look up how "webbed" shoulders (as a product of random mutation, perhaps) could have enabled a small animal to survive a fall from a tree from a height of 15 feet that the other animals would NOT survive, allowing this animal to reproduce and pass on such a trait. As other mutations (perhaps a more pronounced webbing that would offer air resistance enough to allow an animal to survive a fall of 25 feet.)
After millions of years of such advantages, traits would emerge and limbs modified.
You are absolutely incorrect that mid-developed appendages offer no advantage to survival.
Now go do your homework, and search for developement of say, an eye.
EESCHMan
Member
"The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance."
There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.
Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).
Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don't state the "givens," but leave them implicit in their calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with.
(One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution in the least.)"
There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.
Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).
Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don't state the "givens," but leave them implicit in their calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with.
(One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution in the least.)"
CNorris
Banned
That is the biggest load of crap I have ever read. Its absolytely frightening how intellectually dishones intelligent people can be to fight for the cause of their faith in their scientific religion. Of course chemical structure follow rules and laws. All of these laws are incredibly stacked against any formation of life. Read my posting on the explanation of what exactly a protein is. A set of up to 20 amino acids that are in chains of over 200,000. These amino acid chains are so complex that even if one amino acid is out of sequence, the entire protein unfolds and is rendered useless. Being a cell is made of up to 8 trillion of these and a protein HAS ABSOLUTELY NO FUNCTION ouside of a cell, It is absolutely absurd to believe one could form randomly, or by checmical property interactions. Yes it is true that complex molecules randomly form. They just dont last. I challenge anyone to find a shred of scientific evidence that 20 amino acids can naturally form and exist for a significant amount time to even form a protein. Even if they can form, it would be like creating an alpabet to writing the dictionary to make a protein. A protein that would surely deteriorate because of the most funamental laws of thermodymics and chemistry.
If you ignore the inconvenient fact of the improbability of the formation of life, it will go away. How convenient. That argument is as scientific as people that claim Adam and Even were the first man and woman on earth.
The burden of proof lies with those who are making a claim. Science has shown absolutely no evidence that random formation of life from chemicals is possible. There have been conveniently set up simulations that dont follow scientific laws that show it being possible, but they are once again unscientific.
- Status