"Darwin Day" Topic

Hi

TJ:Again, go and check for yourselves; textbooks virtually never mention any of the above problems…

And your "textbook"? The one, genesis, related by a stone age Shepard with no number in it bigger than 1000?

Your basic premise of "too complex" actually, like that first inspired shepard, means too complex for YOU. Being too complex for you or that shepard doesn't, therefore, demonstrate "god" unless you define "god" as infinate complexity.

Meaning as a believer, you need to master fractals.

Rocky

TJ- what has Darwin got to do with Abiogenesis? I have explained REPEATEDLY you don't need abiogenesis for evolution. There is NO evolutionary theory of abiogenesis, because it is NOTHING TO DO WITH evolution.

Extraordianry claims require extraordinary evidence

Yet you repeatedly fail to demonstrate any evidence of a creator.

NOT(Abiogenesis)<>Creation

You steadfastly ignore any attempt to ask about a creator. Instead you have decoyed the thread with irrelevent arguements about abiogenesis.

SHOW EVOLUTION IS INCORRECT.

You can not. Because if you could you would be a nobel prize winner.

Ok. Let's take a quick look at what Sidney Fox did:

Reference:
Sidney W Fox, "The Origin of Pre-biological Systems and of Their Molecular Matrices" (New York Academic Press, 1965)

Sidney Fox, a biochemist, heated up some dry amino acids which caused them to link together into small chains. Please note the total absence of water for reasons as previously discussed; Fox obviously knew his chemistry and the problems associated with trying to get amino acids to link up in water. He then dropped these linked amino acids into some water and they formed some little round structures. This got him very excited because they looked like "cells", and some of them even looked like they were "dividing". He promptly declared these round amino acid structures "protocells".

However, this is really a misnomer for they are nothing to do with cells at all. They look like cells only because they are "round", but there are many other similar round things which are not cells like… soap bubbles or blobs of fat in your chicken soup for example. These can also "divide" (via simple surface tension) but would they be declared "protocells"? Strictly, his alleged "protocells" are just very simple physicochemical structures made of amino acids, and as such, are comparable to any other simple physicochemical structures made of other compounds.

In the same line, A.I. Oparin, a Russian origin-of-life theorist created what he called "coacervates" which also formed round structures. He then placed certain enzymes within this coacervate structure, and again because of simple physicochemical factors, various reaction products were released through the coacervate membrane into the surrounding medium; much was made of this. Again, this only superficially mimicked a cell for you can also blow up a cellophane balloon, put an enzyme into it and get the same phenomenon. Are we to conclude that cell membranes are made of cellophane? Did he explain the origin of the enzymes? Why did he pick and choose his enzymes?

These structures are just very simple physicochemical structures which have nothing at all in common with the immense complexity of the biochemistry of a cell and its membrane. The cell is made of more than just simple amino acids; cells also have many different types of proteins, fats, carbohydrates, DNA, RNA and so on, all working in unison with each other.

A hypothetical question:

What if you already had plenty of all of the basic raw materials like the proteins, fats, carbohydrates and so on necessary to construct a cell and you just threw them all together into a large swimming pool; would they spontaneously assemble themselves into a cell?

Of course not; if it was that easy… someone would have done it by now. The presence of the building materials required is one thing; what is also required are instructions, some sort of plan as to how to put all those building materials into their proper places and then get them all working together. That's where the code in the DNA and RNA comes in. To get one single functional protein molecule to form by chance in the proposed pre-biotic conditions here on Earth is a mathematical absurdity. Evolutionists like Sir Fred Hoyle, and many others I'll add, have recognised this:

"The notion that not only biopolymers, but the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order… Quite a few of my astronomical friends are considerable mathematicians, and once they became interested enough to calculate for themselves instead of relying on hearsay argument, they can quickly see this point."

Fred Hoyle, "The Big Bang in Astronomy", New Scientist, Volume 92, 1981, page 527, emphasis added

In his book "Evolution from Space" (written in 1981 with N Chandra Wickramasinghe) he relates how he actually enjoyed teasing his colleagues, telling them to put any and all of the raw ingredients that they desired into a swimming pool, and to stand back and see if they could get just one single complete bio-molecule needed by a cell. Of course no one took him up it on the challenge because… they knew their chemistry… they knew it wouldn't work.

Evolutionary abiogenesis is a modern day myth…

"… in the atmosphere and in the various water basins of the primitive Earth, many destructive interactions would have vastly diminished, if not altogether consumed, essential pre-cursor chemicals, that chemical evolution rates would have been negligible. The soup would have been too dilute for direct polymerisation to occur. Even local ponds for concentrating soup ingredients would have met the same problem. Furthermore, no geological evidence indicates an organic soup, even a small organic pond, ever existed on this planet. It is becoming clear that however life began on Earth, the usually conceived notion that life emerged from an oceanic soup of organic chemicals is a most implausible hypothesis. We may therefore with all fairness call this "the myth of the pre-biotic soup."

Charles B Thaxton (PhD in Chemistry), et al, "The Mystery of Life's Origins: Reassessing Current Theories" (New York: Philosophical Library, 1984, p66)

Oh how true. So we must ask…

Did the evolutionary theory of abiogenesis come from actual scientific observations and data… or did the theorists formulate a theory from their beliefs and premises and are now, like Miller, Urey, Fox, Oparin, etc, still desperately looking for some useful data… any data to support their speculations?

Clearly, if after more than 50 years of research and study into the nature of the physio-chemistry pertaining to abiogenesis the best evidence they can come up with are the so-called "protocells" and "coacervates", then all I can say is that the "…notion that life emerged from an oceanic soup of organic chemicals is a most implausible hypothesis". Yes, most implausible (thesaurus = unlikely, unbelievable, incredible, far-fetched, questionable) indeed.

Of course, there is an alternative to evolutionary abiogenesis… and all it implies…

However, this is really a misnomer for they are nothing to do with cells at all. They look like cells only because they are "round", but there are many other similar round things which are not cells like… soap bubbles or blobs of fat in your chicken soup for example. These can also "divide" (via simple surface tension) but would they be declared "protocells"? Strictly, his alleged "protocells" are just very simple physicochemical structures made of amino acids, and as such, are comparable to any other simple physicochemical structures made of other compounds.

I suggest that you review some of the links and current papers that I provided for you.

In the same line, A.I. Oparin, a Russian origin-of-life theorist created what he called "coacervates" which also formed round structures. He then placed certain enzymes within this coacervate structure, and again because of simple physicochemical factors, various reaction products were released through the coacervate membrane into the surrounding medium; much was made of this. Again, this only superficially mimicked a cell for you can also blow up a cellophane balloon, put an enzyme into it and get the same phenomenon. Are we to conclude that cell membranes are made of cellophane? Did he explain the origin of the enzymes? Why did he pick and choose his enzymes?

You seem to misunderstand his work…here is a link to his paper:

PDF link

Fred Hoyle, "The Big Bang in Astronomy", New Scientist, Volume 92, 1981, page 527, emphasis added
In his book "Evolution from Space" (written in 1981 with N Chandra Wickramasinghe) he relates how he actually enjoyed teasing his colleagues, telling them to put any and all of the raw ingredients that they desired into a swimming pool, and to stand back and see if they could get just one single complete bio-molecule needed by a cell. Of course no one took him up it on the challenge because… they knew their chemistry… they knew it wouldn't work.

Hoyle's fallacy is a term for the statistical analysis of Sir Fred Hoyle.
Hoyle's formulation concerns the probability that a protein molecule could achieve a functional sequence of amino acids by chance alone. He calculates this as being of approximately the same order of magnitude as the probability that a "hurricane could sweep through a junkyard and randomly assemble a Boeing 747".
According to Ian Musgrave in Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations:
These people, including Fred, have committed one or more of the following errors.
1. They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.
2. They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.
3. They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.
4. They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.
5. They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.

Try this link for more information on probability

link

Evolutionary abiogenesis is a modern day myth…

I will let Last Hussar respond to that.

"… in the atmosphere and in the various water basins of the primitive Earth, many destructive interactions would have vastly diminished, if not altogether consumed, essential pre-cursor chemicals, that chemical evolution rates would have been negligible. The soup would have been too dilute for direct polymerisation to occur. Even local ponds for concentrating soup ingredients would have met the same problem. Furthermore, no geological evidence indicates an organic soup, even a small organic pond, ever existed on this planet. It is becoming clear that however life began on Earth, the usually conceived notion that life emerged from an oceanic soup of organic chemicals is a most implausible hypothesis. We may therefore with all fairness call this "the myth of the pre-biotic soup."
Charles B Thaxton (PhD in Chemistry), et al, "The Mystery of Life's Origins: Reassessing Current Theories" (New York: Philosophical Library, 1984, p66)

Oh how true. So we must ask…
Did the evolutionary theory of abiogenesis come from actual scientific observations and data… or did the theorists formulate a theory from their beliefs and premises and are now, like Miller, Urey, Fox, Oparin, etc, still desperately looking for some useful data… any data to support their speculations?

You might like to follow this link here :

PDF link

and see what it has to say about the scientific research behind Intelligent Design. It includes some very interesting information behind the "Wedge Strategy". Strangely enough Charles B Thaxton (PhD in Chemistry) is mentioned in it.

Clearly, if after more than 50 years of research and study into the nature of the physio-chemistry pertaining to abiogenesis the best evidence they can come up with are the so-called "protocells" and "coacervates", then all I can say is that the "…notion that life emerged from an oceanic soup of organic chemicals is a most implausible hypothesis". Yes, most implausible (thesaurus = unlikely, unbelievable, incredible, far-fetched, questionable) indeed.

You again have ignored current research and developments

Of course, there is an alternative to evolutionary abiogenesis… and all it implies…

From the Forrest Report, 1st April 2005:
"Dembski, one of the most prolific of the wedge writers, prefers more lucrative publishing venues to the non-remunerative publication of scholarly articles in peer-reviewed academic journals: "I've just gotten kind of blasι about submitting things to journals where you have to wait two years to get things into print…and I find that I actually get turnaround faster by writing a book and getting the ideas expressed there. My book will sell well, I get a royalty. And the material gets read more".

It appears that the alternative is proponents of ID who are more interested in building up their bank balance than providing a solid, evidence based alternative to either Darwinism or Abiogenesis.

I look forward to hearing your theory TJ as I am sure that is not the case with you.

Pete

I'm amazed that TJ can write so much with out saying anything worthwhile

TJ certainly looks like he is getting his guidance from the "thinkers" at the Discovery Institute and the Institute for Creation Research. He even copies their buzzwords. For example, he used to use the term "evolutionary abiogenesis", a meaningless term if there ever was one (what is non-evolutionary abiogenesis?). I was then reading some crap from Duane Gish on some ID website, where I notice Mr. Gish used the same term. Funny.

TJ, when are you going to stop presenting these recycled, shopworn and already refuted arguments and present us with your alternative theory?

Ralph

Hi

"after 50 years of study"…is exactly the same as the vastly improbable chance of over a billion years?

If you start with "let there be light" and "6 days"..I guess the paradigm works of recreating creation in a 50 year effort, otherwise, the comparison is nonsense.

Rocky

I will let Last Hussar respond to that.

Why? What's the point? We have repeatedly explained the difference, and I have given examples of one without the other, yet he still comes out with idiotic phrases such as this. He ignores what I say, unless to ridicule by misinterpretation- an act that impresses no-one and merely shows his own mendaciousness.

Because of his ignorance, wilful or otherwise, we are locked in a discussion about abiogenesis. This is a standard creationist technique. Carry on until your opponents are bored of continually explaining the same thing and give up, thus allowing the Cretionist to claim victory, without realising they are being treated the same way a parent treats an argumentative child who will not admit an error.

TJ – What has Darwin got to do with Abiogenesis?

Looks like I'm not the only one repeating the same old questions, eh? As I have said before; if you have to ask what abiogenesis has to do with evolution then you really don't understand the issue at all… or perhaps you have simply decided to dismiss the creation alternative out of hand because it has certain implications that you're not comfortable with… doesn't it…?

I have explained REPEATEDLY you don't need abiogenesis for evolution. There is NO evolutionary theory of abiogenesis, because it is NOTHING TO DO WITH evolution.

Explained…? Oh, let's all laugh out loud on that one. Nothing…? Mmmm… let's consider this all too common droning by evolutionists… yet again.

OK, how do I explain it this time? Let's try another way… not that any of the other ways were that difficult to understand.

Let's start with a well established law of science – the Law of Biogenesis. The Law of Biogenesis states the every living thing had a parent of some sort. This is a scientific "law"; it can be observed scientifically and no exception has ever been found. You had parents; your parents had parents; your grandparents had parents, etc, etc, etc.

Now, assuming the process of biological evolution to be true, we follow this way, way back via a multitude of common ancestors, random mutations and natural selections till we reach that very first living, reproducing cell from which all life is said to have begun.

Now that very first living, reproducing cell had no parents… true?

Ok. Lacking any parents, evolutionary theorists theorized that that very first living, reproducing cell came about via the process called "abiogenesis", the process of life beginning from non-life, from non-living chemicals, etc.

Now, and tune in, at that point, if abiogenesis didn't occur for some reason, or couldn't occur for some reason, and that very first living, reproducing cell did not come into being, then biological evolution, as a process, would have to remain dormant. Biological evolution could still exist as a real process, but without that first living, reproducing cell to work upon, biological evolution, as a process, would simply remain inactive and would remain so until it had something to work on; something that could mutate; something that could undergo natural selection.

In fact, if abiogenesis didn't occur or couldn't occur to produce that first living, reproducing cell, then you and I would not be sitting here discussing it right now.

So, I sit here in wonder as to your unwavering belief that abiogenesis has nothing to do with biological evolution of life.

It's extremely difficult, rather impossible to see how life, biology, call it what you may, could come into existence without that abiogenesis event. Abiogenesis is thus the evolutionary theory's prerequisite for life.

Clearly then, if abiogenesis as a process can be shown to be a physical and chemical scientific impossibility, that it could not have occurred "naturally" and "spontaneously" by natural processes as proposed by evolutionary theorists, then that first cell could never come into existence and the whole process of biological evolution, even if it existed, would have remained dormant forever… just sitting there waiting for something to do.

Without abiogenesis there is no life and without life there is no biological evolution.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Yet you repeatedly fail to demonstrate any evidence of a creator.

What have I been doing for the last few weeks? Then again, I guess while ever a person still has to ask questions like "What has evolution got to do with abiogenesis?" after all these discussions, then their mind isn't exactly up to speed enough to recognize and consider the evidence.

Though I expect nothing but the usual rhetoric and propaganda in return, I will ask yet again:

How did that first living, reproducing cell come about?

I'm still waiting for YOUR scientific evidence as to how, and remember, it's an important part of YOUR theory and YOUR belief system, not mine.

For me, current state-of-the-art scientific evidence and research as previously presented clearly indicates that abiogenesis could not occur naturally and spontaneously as proposed and promoted by evolutionary theorists.

How then did it occur…?

If evolutionary theorists have got this part completely wrong, then what else have they got wrong…?

Now, that's what I'd call a leading question.

Why do you want talk statistics and probabilties?

Where's your science…?

Oh, I forgot… you haven't got any.

Why do you want talk statistics and probabilties?

Where's your science…?

Oh, I forgot… you haven't got any.

You brought this up…lets look at the point you raised:

"The notion that not only biopolymers, but the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order… Quite a few of my astronomical friends are considerable mathematicians, and once they became interested enough to calculate for themselves instead of relying on hearsay argument, they can quickly see this point."

Fred Hoyle, "The Big Bang in Astronomy", New Scientist, Volume 92, 1981, page 527, emphasis added

It appears that you quote from peoples work but do not actually understand the nature of their argument. Hoyle's argument was based on probability…Hoyle got the mathematics wrong.

Pete

I'm still waiting for YOUR scientific evidence as to how, and remember, it's an important part of YOUR theory and YOUR belief system, not mine.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Forget it guys, TJ is a simple shill for ID and has no interest in fruitful debate. He has no interest in learning anything that may upset his rather dogmatic understanding of his unchanging, and infallible world view.

Where's your alternative? You IDiots have had a 20 year head start on Darwin and have come up with zilch ever since. What have you come up with and what is your alternative? You've been asked about 10 times now.

Ralph

Abiogenesis is a fact. Regardless of how you imagined it happened (and Creation is a theory of Abiogenesis), it is a fact that once there was no life on Earth and now there is. Thus, even if Evolution needs abiogenesis it has it.

The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution. Claiming that evolution does not apply without a theory of abiogenesis makes as much sense as saying umbrellas do not work without a theory of meteorology.

TJ, the argument that you are using (and I am ignoring the mockery that you seem you feel the need to employ) is illogical.

In the same way we do not know what gravity "is", but can see the effects and form a theory based on evidence, we do not need to know how Abiogenesis occurred to see the effects of life on earth, gather testable evidence and form a theory of evolution.

If you, or anybody can provide any sustainable evidence contrary to either theory then please publish it. I will be the first to congratulate you and no doubt you will gain significant international acclaim.

I'm not being sarcastic…I just do not believe the validity of your current argument.

Pete

Pete

I must edmit I find it curious that religous find evolution so hard to accept. I mean evolution in NO way disproves a good. All it disproves is the creation myth.

Which any sane person should understand i a fairytale.
I guess they have choosen evolution as a poster boy of their general fear of science.
But as I said, they should just concide their defeat. Evolution is the best proven and best understood of all modern scientific theorys.
Does that mean that we know ALL there is about evolution, ofcourse not, but we do know it happens and it happens though natural selection.
That will never be falsified, only alaborated on.

Hi

Back to reasoning from a falsehood, TJ. The premise is that everything has parents, therefore the first cell had parents. Since the "children" reflect the parents, therefor the first cell had to have cell parents.

This is why I use "false syllogism". Syllogism is a form of reasoning where one gathers points together to produce a falsehood. In this case the initial points are also false meaning the entire circle starts with facts not in evidence and then reasons with more facts not in evidence to produce a false conclusion.

An extended version of the "Chicken and the egg".

Ok, for the sake of "discussion" try this. Two gods, male and female were the parents of that first cell. The first cell had to exist, TJ insists that everything has parents, therefore we have TWO creative gods parenting that first cell.

Since TJ has demonstrated this false syllogism to be true, could he support the contention by telling us the NAME and origin of those two gods?

I propose the great spaghetti monster and Ishtar!

Now, who were their parents?

Rocky

And this is ofcourse Infinite regress.

Who created god, and who created what ever created god ect. ect. ect. ect. ect. ect.

The Theory of Gravity
We know the pull of gravity exists and have calculated the formulas describing it's behavior without knowing exactly where gravity comes from.

The Theory of Heliocentrism
We know the Earth travels around the Sun and have calculated the formulas describing it's behavior without knowing exactly where the Earth or the Sun come from.

The Atomic Theory
We know the nature of atoms and have calculated how atoms behave and form into molecules and larger compounds without knowing exactly where atoms come from.

The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection
We know that evolution best explains the variations found amongst living things without knowing exactly where life came from.

I'm sure TJ has no problems with the first 3 theories. Why does he insist on special pleading on behalf of the last theory?

Ralph

I think this is your answer,

TJRAYMOND 22 Feb 2009 9:02 p.m. PST

Question: Do you have any evidence to show that science (the scientific endeavour and method) is the ONLY way to find and know a truth?

Question: Do you have any evidence to show that science (the scientific endeavour and method) is the only way to find ANY truth?

and…

See, right there, right at the start, those who believe that the scientific method is the only path to all truth and enlightenment have a problem. With absolutely no evidence to support their belief, they choose to reject any and all other explanations even before they start.

It appears that TJ doesn't need science to know the truth…in fact it seems that science gets in the way. If TJ says it's true then evidently it must be because if you follow his logical reasoning only he has the answers.

Pete

The Theory of Gravity
We know the pull of gravity exists and have calculated the formulas describing it's behavior without knowing exactly where gravity comes from.

The Theory of Heliocentrism
We know the Earth travels around the Sun and have calculated the formulas describing it's behavior without knowing exactly where the Earth or the Sun come from.

The Atomic Theory
We know the nature of atoms and have calculated how atoms behave and form into molecules and larger compounds without knowing exactly where atoms come from.

The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection
We know that evolution best explains the variations found amongst living things without knowing exactly where life came from.

I'm sure TJ has no problems with the first 3 theories. Why does he insist on special pleading on behalf of the last theory?

Ralph

I agree with the first and fourth.
But we know prety well were atoms come from.
The was majority of hydrogen and helium was created by fusing quarks shortly after the big bang, these gasses became the first stars, in the star the helium fused into the other elements up to iron, in normal reaction in the stars nothing heavier then iron is made, but when the stars go super nova the other elements get made up to uranium.

Thats how atoms come from.

About the solarsystem, we know that an event probebly a super navoa's shock wave pushed togeather a dust cloud.
At first static electisity started to lump to geather, when the lumps get bigger gravity takes over and the prosses speed up, the ball og gass condences stats to spinn faster and faster, gets more and more massive unitl it hits critical mass and Nuclear fusen starts and the sun is born.
There wouls still be some dust left that didn't end up in the sun, these became the planets.
So we know ca. how it happend, there are a few kinks in the nebular theory, like some of the planets are in the worng place and some shouldn't be there ect. so we don't know exactly the evolution of the solar system, but we do know alot of how the earth got there..

Gravity is still a mystery, especaly as long as we havn't found the graviton, if it even exist.

And abiogenensis is aslo a mystory tho we do have some ide's

Fair enough, but….

At the time the theories were formulated the root cause of all the components were not known. Therefore, the validity of the atomic theory did not depend upon knowing the ultimate origin of the atoms, or the quarks that make up the atoms.

Ralph

Agreed

Why is the human eye so badly designed?
Ditto the genitals?

Au contraire! There's nothing badly designed about MY gonads! (the very idea…) My eyes, otoh, yes, badly designed….

And this is ofcourse Infinite regress.

Who created god, and who created what ever created god ect. ect. ect. ect. ect. ect.

The simple, the only answer is that this is the only Existence we know: it has always Existed, and all of space-time is apparitional to that Existence, but not to living things within it. Existence in the first place = "God". And we don't get to define "which God", as Rocky has said several times on this thread: Existence is defined for each mind egocentrically, and therefore is unique to each mind: e.g. I cannot PROVE that everything surrounding me Exists empirically for any other mind than my own….

Hi

Actually, human genitals are a neat bit of well designed kit. Simply, the goods need to be cooler than body temp. This means that the product dies in 3 days. This means year round sex for fun, otherwise, the female would made ONCE and store the needed genetic material as some animals do now.

Everytime you have fun, thank the creator for that "Bad Design".

Rocky

I'll disagree with Doug and Rocky on the design of the male gonads…..it is poor. It is a flaw that spermatogenesis occurs most efficiently a few degrees below core body temperature. Why?

a) It leaves a very delicate body part exposed to trauma.
b) It requires the testicles to descend through the abdominal wall, something that doesn't always happen properly.
c) It allow strangulation of the vas deferens…..not a nice situation either.
d) It produces the situation of inguinal hernias later.

Rather a poor design job I'd say. Not something an infallible all-knowing creator would be proud of.

Ralph

Hi

As I said, the cool sperm design makes year round sex.

Body temp kills sperm in 3 days. Long enough for fertility at the right time, but allows a lot of sex without reproduction. Unlike some species, she cannot have a male once and store the result for the rest of her life.

The other quibbles are part of the package to make that so. Despite the morality…it is clear we are designed to have non-reproductive sex!

Rocky

a) It leaves a very delicate body part exposed to trauma.

And pleasure of many kinds, a trade-off, I'd say.

Ralph, your objections to the "design" of our packages all fall within the necessity of opposition: yes, "God" could have done everything differently, but in THIS world this is the way it is. A more perfectly designed set of sexual equipment would be in the same realm as perfect teeth (let's talk about a messy design!): as Henry said, "Nothing in this world has any business being perfect." Perfection is an imagined ideal, possibly for elsewhere, but not here where everything dies. While the male is in his nature-dictated "reproductive years" he doesn't have trouble (barring imperfections) with the things you object to: that's all for later, after "nature" couldn't give a hoot if he lives or dies….

Rocky- they are well evolved but poorly designed. If an all powerful being had designed them, then we would get all the upside with no downside. Why not design it so the part that is vital to continuation of the species works inside the body, preferably behind bone protection!? Of course as Doug points out evolution doesn't care about this.

Plus not just them being outside; as someone once remarked "Who puts an sewer through a pleasure park?" (both sexes). Also putting the urethra (is that right part, can't be bothered to google. The urine tube) through the prostate is a muck up as well.

TJ- I offered you a number of scenarios with both creator and evolution, and you chose to laugh at one or two of them, ignoring the point. You say the first cell couldn't happen by chance. Ok. Your creator, for which we have no proof, made those first cells He/She/It made the very lowliest thing that can be called life. How does this disprove evolution? It would go against the current abiogenesis theories, but as you have repeatedly failed to grasp, this has NO effect on evolution. Evolution doesn't care how life originated. Hundreds of generations could pass for those cells before the first mutation happened. Or one. But where the original cell came from does not affect it. Now, stop confusing abiogenisis with evolution.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Yet you repeatedly fail to demonstrate any evidence of a creator.

What have I been doing for the last few weeks?

No, you have been arguing against abiogenesis. But hey, I will cut you some more slack in this post. I will work on your assumption that if there is no proof for A then B must be true.

If Creator can not be proved, then Abiogenesis must be true.

I'm with Last Hussar on this one TJ…perhaps you may at last grasp the fault in your logic.

Pete

Despite the morality…it is clear we are designed to have non-reproductive sex!

Sorry, not convinced. We could still have all the benefits you state with internal gonads. The fact that a small % of our cells need to be created at a different temperature than the rest, is plainly a dumb design and a good argument for non-designed evolution.

And pleasure of many kinds, a trade-off, I'd say.

Doug, what a day this is going to be! I agree with everything you said, if fact, that is what I am arguing for.

However, I would still say that the design of our gonads is far worse than the design of our dentition. Most of the problems with our male genito-urinary systems are derived from the design itself. Most of the problems of our gums and teeth derive from the fact that they sit within the dirtiest part of a human body, the mouth. The tissues that make up the gums and teeth are coveted by the tiny denizens of that realm, and whose almost perfect designs make them the real rulers of this planet. You see, they have had a few billion years head start with this evolution thing! :^)

Ralph

Mammal teeth are both fantastic and sucky.
They are fantastic in that most mammals have sevral types of teeth, unlike other animals,
They are sucky in that they realy, well suck, one of the leading causes of death among carnivores are broken or damaged teeth, when they break, two thing hammens, 1, the might get infected, that alone is deadly, or 2 they can't catch food and starve.

The second leading cause of death in prehistory humans were damiged teeth(the first beeing murder)
If you got to 25 with out beeing murderd, your teeth was so ed up you probebly died prety soon.

Had we been designed, we would have teeth like sharks, with rowes of teeth ready to take the place of those damiged.

They are sucky in that they realy, well suck, one of the leading causes of death among carnivores are broken or damaged teeth, when they break, two thing hammens,……

I'll politely disagree here too. I think the leading accidental cause of death amongst animals and primitive humans must be broken limb bones (lions and tigers may be the exception). At any rate, I would say more humans have died from broken bones than broken teeth. But I don't see that as a design flaw of either bones or teeth.

As for the infections from broken teeth (or broken bones for that matter) that is also not a design flaw of the infected part. That show good design amongst the infectious agents involved.

But the "continuous zahnreihen" concept of sharks does sound like a better idea. But evolution doesn't "care" about that either. So the troubles with broken teeth did not ever affect the "fitness" of any of the species you are thinking of. Again, intelligent design it is not!

On a related point, genes for partial anodontia (genetically missing teeth) are on the increase within the human population, even within the last few hundred years. The incidence of missing wisdom teeth, 2nd premolars, and lateral incisors is much higher today than it was even 500 years ago. Some suspect that these "redundant teeth" are being phased out due to the need of greater cranial space. Our heads can't get much bigger at the expense of the birth canal.

Ralph

As I said if a man lived to 25 his teeth would have been more or less gone or the jaw so rotten and infected that they died of sepcis. Either way death was the resault.
Broken bones can be healed(as long as they don't punkture the skin, in which case infection would set in, and would lead to death almost always up until the late 1800s, unless the limb was amputeded)
If you broke your arm or leg, you could stay home in the cave or what ever while others in your family hunted.

If your teeth go you died nothing could fix that at that time.
And the number one cause of death for a male in hunter & gathering sociaty is murder/war/skirmishes
The myth of this wonderfull utopic H&G lifestyle is just that a myth, life during those times were short and brutal, if the mamouth didn't get you when you hunted it, the nabouger tribesmen would. If you were lucky to make it to 25 you died becasue of your teeth.

If an all powerful being had designed them, then we would get all the upside with no downside.

An all-powerful Being (Existence itself) isn't concerned with trivial things like perfection in a World that DIES! Other things are behind our "being there" in the first place, and perfection ain't one of them.

Now, stop confusing abiogenisis with evolution.

It's perfectly clear to me how this discussion got started and remained fueled: the ID proponent(s) pointed out that evolutionists typically IGNORE the entire question of Existence in the first place: merely studying evolution, yet not content to leave "God" discussions alone, they assert that evolution is some kind of evidence that there is no "God", e.g. the comments here about how crappy our sexual equipment is "designed", i.e. the "Designer" is a moron, ergo cannot be "God", finishing up with, "therefore evolution, which is positively the way life develops on this planet, is evidence that no ID was involved, at, all." The IDer responds that you cannot ignore abiogenesis, because it is the reason evolution happens in the first place. And the IDer says that the impossibility of that first cell coming alive means that something or someONE answers the question, "why did that first cell come alive?" As the evolutionists who rub "God" out of the picture have NO viable theory, the IDer is ahead on this one: they advance a hypothesis -- "God did it" -- and although (for the present) science cannot find a way to test that hypothesis, the IDer says that everything denotes that there is a "God" responsible for Existence, i.e. for the first cell that came alive: the trouble isn't in the theory, it is in the present lack of science to determine a way to test it

Had we been designed, we would have teeth like sharks, with rowes of teeth ready to take the place of those damiged.

An assertion only. The variety of mortal life is probably part of the perfect joke: watching all of us argue about how this feature or that attribute combined in US would prove that we were "designed" by "God". If we were intended to live any amount of time as we are, I would go along with that line of reasoning: but as we live not even long enough to register a *blip* on the cosmic scale of events, I fail to see how anything to do with lifespan has anything to do with design. The "design" of Existence for us as immortals seems entirely separate from the empirical world we temporarily inhabit. (but this is veering dangerously close to religion, a verboten subject outside TBF: I am actually surprised that this thread made it halfway this far before running aground on that treacherous shoreline)….

Maybe we should take this to TBF? TJ hasn't been visiting lately, anyway, britishscarlet can ask Bill for entry to TBF, and the rest of us already "belong"….

But what if he says no? The rejection might just push me over the edge!

Pete

Well since you live in england you probebly don't own any guns, so even if you go over the edge you can only stabb like a few people before a bobby comes along and says: whats all this then? And then a Monty python sketch starts, and it will be funny, Infact, I think it would be a good ide if you go over the edge. I dare you, don't we a wimp, go out stabbing, it will be funny

Don't be a trouble-maker, Freak. :)

Now, Scarlet, go ask Bill and he'll set you up. TBF needs more denizens: 'tis an underpopulated forum, especially for one a year old….

Have put in my request…success or madness beckons!

Pete

And there you go, Pete; easy wasn't it?

Do'h and I was so hopeing for a killing spree

All signed up and no people were harmed in the process!

Doug says:

……merely studying evolution, yet not content to leave "God" discussions alone, they assert that evolution is some kind of evidence that there is no "God"…….

the comments here about how crappy our sexual equipment is "designed", i.e. the "Designer" is a moron, ergo cannot be "God"

Doug, you are making these statements up. I don't remember these at all. I made comments about poorly designed body parts being a good example of evolution at work, and surely not the work of ID. This in NO WAY proves or disproves the existence of God.

Ralph

As I said if a man lived to 25 his teeth would have been more or less gone or the jaw so rotten and infected that they died of sepcis.

My good friend gunfreak. You missed my point. I agree with your statement above. But I submit that we are not talking about poorly designed teeth, rather about excellently adapted bacteria who prey upon us in a myriad of ways.

As you well know, prokaryotic life had a 2 BILLION year head start on all other life forms and at least a 4 billion year jump on us humans and our teeth. The little s have developed some nasty tricks in that time.

Ralph

Pete,

I suspect you will be greatly disappointed in the Blue Fez. Take a look at the political page to see what I mean.

Ralph

My good friend gunfreak. You missed my point. I agree with your statement above. But I submit that we are not talking about poorly designed teeth, rather about excellently adapted bacteria who prey upon us in a myriad of ways.

Not just bacteria, the teeth generaly don't hold up to the food we eat, we used to have to gnaw alot more then we do today, we didn't have bread and other softer food.
The grains we ate, the seeds we ate ect. flied down our teeth and broke them, how many people even now a days break their teeth on stuff. Back in prehistory it might mean death.
So it's just not bacteria the teeth them self hadded adapted enough to the food we ate.

Doug, you are making these statements up. I don't remember these at all. I made comments about poorly designed body parts being a good example of evolution at work, and surely not the work of ID. This in NO WAY proves or disproves the existence of God.

Ralph

I apologize for not being clear: I was referring to the trend of such discussion, in my experience, not the comments of individuals on this thread. I know you didn't say anything like that.

I agree fully, that the empirical world as-is, if upheld as evidence of ID (i.e. we are meant to be as we are, because "God" made us this way deliberately), is crappy evidence. Evolution seems, imho, to BE the ID: evolving life is the design of mortal existence. It sure is a lot more interesting than just creating a species to have manifest imperfections and shortcomings, and leave them all that way: much more interesting to "watch" over the billions and billions of years and observe how everything that started as a BB ("Let there be light!") eventually plays out entirely, mutating and evolving and going extinct, until finally the entire universe blows out: then, BB all over again ("The heavens and earth shall pass away, and there will be a new heaven and a new earth": "All things shall pass away, but my words will not pass away but will all be fulfilled, and there will be a new heaven and a new earth", etc; see? scripture is scientific -- or at least can agree with science -- in predicting the future destiny of Existence.)

Gunfreak:

the teeth generaly don't hold up to the food we eat, we used to have to gnaw alot more then we do today……

You could be on to something. Here is a link that suggests ancient Egyptians were particularly susceptible to life threatening dental abscesses.

link

Doug:

Evolution seems, imho, to BE the ID: evolving life is the design of mortal existence.

I think it is better to say that, evolving life is a response to the challenges of ever changing environments that life finds itself within.

It sure is a lot more interesting than just creating a species to have manifest imperfections and shortcomings, and leave them all that way:…….

I agree.

Ralph

Ralph

Afraid you are right.

Pete

Passing by; now let's see…

Abiogenesis is a fact. Regardless of how you imagined it happened (and Creation is a theory of Abiogenesis), it is a fact that once there was no life on Earth and now there is. Thus, even if Evolution needs abiogenesis it has it.

Ah, the good old Number 1 Rule of discussing evolutionary theory: "If evolution needs [whatever it needs – you fill in the blank] it has it!" The theory can never be wrong, even if the evidence says so.

While were at it, we may as well look at the other "rules" routinely employed:

Rule 2: If the data and evidence support the theory in some way; good. If it doesn't then you simply deem it to be irrelevant!

Rule 2A: It always helps to muddy the waters by throwing in some nonsense as well.

Rule 3: You formulate your theory first, then go and look for the evidence to back it up.

Rule 4: Make out that there is no or no sound alternative to your theory.

Rule 4A: Don't bother reading about any of the alternatives. Just be lazy and believe the standard, feel good evolutionary propaganda.

Rule 5: Make out that any alternative to the theory is unscientific.

Rule 6: Always be dogmatic that your theory is the preeminent theory and that any others pale into insignificance when compared to it.

Rule 7: If struggling, twist their words.

Rule 8: Lump the foggy areas of your theory in with other well known and proven theories in the hope that they will appear comparable with them.

Rule 9: And of course, reject any and all supernatural explanations even before you start.

So, let's see what we got:

The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution. Claiming that evolution does not apply without a theory of abiogenesis makes as much sense as saying umbrellas do not work without a theory of meteorology.

Yes, clearly Rule 2. Now, "The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists"… of course that raises a question: I wonder what happens if no life exists? Does evolution as a process still exist or not?

The umbrellas and meteorology stuff… see Rule 2A.

In the same way we do not know what gravity "is", but can see the effects and form a theory based on evidence, we do not need to know how Abiogenesis occurred to see the effects of life on earth, gather testable evidence and form a theory of evolution.

"…we do not need to know how Abiogenesis occurred…" See Rule 1 and Rule 2 again.

"…form a theory based on evidence … gather testable evidence and form a theory of evolution…". So, I wonder, where exactly is this "gathered testable evidence" that helped you form your theory of abiogenesis…? In reality it's a case of Rule 3.

If you, or anybody can provide any sustainable evidence contrary to either theory then please publish it.

Clearly a case of Rule 4: Of course there is an alternative and much has been written on creation. So, because of Rule 9… see Rule 4A.

Gunfreak said "… of their general fear of science…"

See Rule 5. And "fear"? See Rule 2A. And can you define the "science" you are referring to exactly? There is the real observable, testable, empirical science that's used here and now, the type that leads to computers, the Internet and puts probes on Mars, and there's the theoretical, un-observable, un-testable so-called "science" masquerading as real science, you know, the type that claims to dogmatically know exactly what happened way, way back in time… like evolutionary theory for example.

But as I said, they should just concide [concede] their defeat. Evolution is the best proven and best understood of all modern scientific theorys [theories]. Does that mean that we know ALL there is about evolution, of course not, but we do know it happens and it happens though natural selection. That will never be falsified, only alaborated [elaborated] on.

See Rule 6 and Rule 3 as well: "Never"? Don't hurt your fist hitting the pulpit there… and "best proven"? Oh, surely you jest. You are simply voicing your personal biases and premises. Is your explanation of abiogenesis the "best proven"? No, it fails at every turn. And remember; evolution doesn't happen via "natural selection"; it happens via mutations; no mutations; no evolution; natural selection only weeds them out.

Rocky said: "Back to reasoning from a falsehood [eh?] TJ. The premise is that everything has parents, therefore the first cell had parents. Since the "children" reflect the parents, therefore the first cell had to have cell parents. This is why I use "false syllogism". Syllogism is a form of reasoning where one gathers points together to produce a falsehood. In this case the initial points are also false meaning the entire circle starts with facts not in evidence and then reasons with more facts not in evidence to produce a false conclusion. An extended version of the "Chicken and the egg".

A clear case of Rule 7: Do try and understand… The first cell had no parents; that's evolutionary theory is it not? Abiogenesis IS the evolutionary explanation of the coming into existence of that first cell is it not? So, I guess this is also an example of Rule 2A.

Note Rule 8… and here's the example. Gravity: Yes; it's proven, observable and testable here and now. Heliocentrism: Again; it's proven, observable and testable here and now. Atomic Theory: Again; it's reasonably well proven, observable and testable here and now. The Theory of Evolution [by Mutations followed] by Natural Selection: Well, as they say, three and a half out of four ain't bad.

We know natural selection is reasonably well proven, observable and testable here and now. However, the progress of evolution from some single celled microbe to us… well… is that observable and testable here and now? Was it ever? Could it ever be? Recognize that the question really is and has always been this:

Can mutations followed by natural selection actually lead to evolution as proposed?

What does the real here and now real sciences (like chemistry, genetics, thermodynamics, etc) actually have to say about it all? Or is it just a case of Rule 1: If evolutionary theory needs it, it has it…?

We know that evolution best explains the variations found amongst living things without knowing exactly where life came from.

See Rule 6 and Rule 1. "…without knowing exactly where life came from…" is of course yet another admission that the theory is simply based on premises, not actual data or evidence as per Rule 3.

It appears that TJ doesn't need science to know the truth…in fact it seems that science gets in the way.

Rule 5 and Rule 6 again. And further nonsense as per Rule 2A. Do we need to be reminded, yet again, that the sciences of chemistry and thermodynamics clearly get in the way of the evolutionary explanation of abiogenesis? Thus, it seems pretty clear who is actually ignoring the real scientific evidence that's getting in the way of their theory… See Rule 4 and Rule 4A.

Gravity is still a mystery, especially as long as we haven't found the graviton, if it even exist[s]. And abiogenesis is also a mystery though we do have some ide's [ideas].

… "abiogenesis is also a mystery" eh? And we see yet another admission that the theory is simply based on premises; not actual evidence or data… clearly a case of Rule 3 again: "Let's propose a theory, and then go look for the data…"

At the time the theories were formulated the root cause of all the components were not known. Therefore, the validity of the atomic theory did not depend upon knowing the ultimate origin of the atoms, or the quarks that make up the atoms.

However, please note that atomic theory is/was at least observable and testable here and now. We could do the same you know, test abiogenic theories here and now in the lab; study the actual chemistry involved; study the actual thermodynamics involved and so on… oh, they've tried, haven't they? And what have they found so far…? See Rule 1 and Rule 2.

Rocky said: "TJ – I offered you a number of scenarios with both creator and evolution, and you chose to laugh at one or two of them, ignoring the point [eh?]. You say the first cell couldn't happen by chance. Ok. Your creator, for which we have no proof, made those first cells He/She/It made the very lowliest thing that can be called life. How does this disprove evolution? …It would go against the current abiogenesis theories, but as you have repeatedly failed to grasp, this has NO effect on evolution.

Goodness; see Rule 1, Rule 4, Rule 6, Rule 7 and certainly Rule 9! Surely you realise that acknowledging the existence of a "creator" allows for the existence of "god" and that's something that you just can't allow, can you… as per Rule 9?

Anyway, a question: What "evidence" (you should ask for evidence not proof) would you accept for the existence of a "creator" or "god"?

Evolution doesn't care how life originated.

So, see Rule 1 and Rule 2. And no… it's not "evolution doesn't care"; it's you don't care… and you know why… See Rule 9.

Now, stop confusing abiogenesis with evolution. No, you have been arguing against abiogenesis. But hey, I will cut you some more slack in this post. I will work on your assumption that if there is no proof for A then B must be true. …If Creator can not be proved, then Abiogenesis must be true.

See Rule 2A and Rule 7. Of course, can't both A and B be false? Perhaps evolution and creation are both wrong, though it's hard to perceive a third alternative. And we should note that the opposite of your proposal is also true: If a Creator can be proven, then Abiogenesis must be true…

Now, stop confusing abiogenesis with evolution.

See Rule 7 and Rule 2A again. I don't confuse them. In case you haven't noticed, both creation AND evolution BOTH say abiogenesis occurred… Correct? The only question then is… HOW? Was it "naturally and spontaneously" as proposed by evolution or was it via "special creation"? So far, using the sciences of chemistry and thermodynamics as our guide, the "naturally and spontaneously" theory isn't doing that well, is it? Again, where's your evidence? See Rule 2 and Rule 3.

It's perfectly clear to me how this discussion got started and remained fueled: the ID proponent(s) pointed out that evolutionists typically IGNORE the entire question of Existence in the first place: merely studying evolution, yet not content to leave "God" discussions alone, they assert that evolution is some kind of evidence that there is no "God", … i.e. the "Designer" is a moron, ergo cannot be "God", finishing up with, "therefore evolution, which is positively the way life develops on this planet, is evidence that no ID was involved at all". The IDer responds that you cannot ignore abiogenesis, because it is the reason evolution happens in the first place. And the IDer says that the impossibility of that first cell coming alive means that something or someONE answers the question, "why [No, it's not "why"; it's "how"] did that first cell come alive?" As the evolutionists who rub "God" out of the picture have NO viable theory, the IDer is ahead on this one: they advance a hypothesis – "God did it" – and although (for the present) science cannot find a way to test that hypothesis, the IDer says that everything denotes that there is a "God" responsible for Existence, i.e. for the first cell that came alive: the trouble isn't in the theory, it is in the present lack of science to determine a way to test it.

"…the trouble isn't in the theory…" is Rule 1, and also this "present lack of science to determine a way to test it", well that's Rule 3.

However, I would agree that this broadly summarises discussions so far. Whether abiogenesis can naturally and spontaneously occur or not IS a question that can be answered by the science of chemistry; the chemistry exists to test it; it can be done; some attempts have been made (Miller, Urey, etc, etc). However, the answers that keep coming back from such research are really quite depressing for evolutionary abiogenesis theory… because of Rule 3.

"… I am actually surprised that this thread made it halfway this far before running aground on that treacherous shoreline…

Why? It sure doesn't surprise me. I have found that evolutionists must defend their "faith", their beliefs, at all costs because the supernatural alternative has certain implications for them personally. What they "fear" is the thought that if the science and the evidence behind abiogenesis (or any other part of evolutionary theory for that matter) leads to the inescapable conclusion that "god" exists, then their whole belief system is shattered, and so they must… see Rule 9.

Creationists don't fear proper science – never have. Proper science is and has always been good for mankind but at least we realize that science has its limits. We cannot go back into the distant past to examine what happened as with something like abiogenesis. We can only study the question using good quality science (chemistry, thermodynamics, etc) here and now, and when we do, it clearly shows us that the proposed "natural and spontaneous" abiogenesis cannot occur, and since there is no "natural and spontaneous" explanation… and since after more than fifty years of research it appears that one is not forthcoming, then…

Oh, I almost forgot Rule 10: If you can't attack the argument; attack the man.

This is always their standard last resort. However, its also very good evidence that they haven't got and can't produce the necessary evidences… the necessary science to back their claims… Why? Well, see Rule 3 again.

Consider Rule 9:

Question: Do you reject creation as another explanation for the origins of life… even before you start?

…Yes, I thought so… and you know why…