Loopholes In Origin of Life Theories - Science vs Evolution

posted on June 16th, 2012, 3:24 pm

In the Middle Ages, the rediscovery that the world is round and moving around the sun triggered religious questions that forced human beings to re-examine humanity's place in the universe. (It is a humbling and freeing thing to realize you aren't at the center of it all.)

Um, during the middle ages, the general consensus was that the world was round, not flat. The earth being flat was injected into the story of Columbus in the late 1820s by a anti-Christian which was promoted by other anti-Christians the very next decade to slander Christianity. Here's an article on the issue. It makes note of some of the exceptions within the church and (surprisingly) the church didn't address the issue very often, but when they did, they said it was round.
http://creation.com/who-invented-the-flat-earth

For the earth not being the center of the universe, well, that's a different story all together. The church actually welcomed the new heliocentric models of the solar system for (1) they realized that it did not conflict with the Bible and (2) they wanted to get rid of the pagan influence that everything circled the earth. It was the Greek philosophers that forced the founders of the model into science, while it wasn't until much later that layman in the Church (not the leaders) opposed the model. It's really a philosophical decision whether you believe the Milky Way is the center of the universe.

While I agree that the subject needs to be handled with care, the discussion can be a fruitful one.

I definitely agree there.

---

The admins should really close these threads...especially since Chapman, our well-known creationist, is the only one opening them.

Except this time, I'm trying to leave creation out of the discussion.

Btw TC...facts are merily scientific...there is only evidence...and without giving acknowledgement where you digged out these "facts" the whole discussion is pointless in any way.

Considering that much of the evolutionary theory has to deal with what happened in the past, the evidence must be interpreted based on a philosophical view. The parts that are tested in the lab show huge problems with the theory in general that must be overcome.

I left out references because they would only hinder my efforts to leave creation out of the discussion.

---

I do agree that topics such as this tend to go south real fast. However that is to be expected since a complete trust in science can be called "faith" or a religion.

I hoped that no one would mention that. But you're right. Science is done by fallible people, so theories that seem to be proven correct can be quite wrong and proven wrong even after it's called law or fact.

I am both a Christian and a scientist. It is the scientist in me which has serious doubts about the evolution theory.
As a scientist you look at the evidence, bring forth a hypothesis, test this hypothesis and if the evidence contradicts the hypothesis you investigate why it does contradict the hypothesis and you propose a new hypothesis.

I would like to ask a question. What happens if your theory has to deal with what happened in the past, which cannot be repeated in a lab? Sure you can set up simulations but you cannot physically repeat it. Should that theory be called a scientific theory or a historical theory?

The biggest scientific travesty of our time is the fact that scientists still hang onto the evolution theory (especially macro evolution) despite evidence against it.

I agree. That's sort of why I started the thread, so we could scientifically discuss these weaknesses in the evolutionary theory.

Personally i won't start topics such as this simply i do not believe the internet is the place for it. If we want to debate this let's meet face to face, bring a beer and plenty of spare time and we can discuss it. The internet is really not the place for this.

I'd advise against the beer. Not that there's anything wrong with it, I just think it's not the right drink to bring to a discussion where you must be very careful to use logic in your arguments. Stuff like beer can hinder that logic. Anyways, you are correct. The internet is not really the place for it.

---

My father taught me to never discuss: sports, politics or religion, because those topics go directly to the core of people believes and therefore those discussions are unproductive and a waste of time.

I like discussing scientific topics (particularly the creation/evolution controversy, which is technically religion vs religion, NOT science vs religion, but since that's not how it's portrayed, I figured I'd leave creation out of the discussion), but I find it very difficult to discuss origins in a way that will be productive.

---

this is just funny.

Tchapman, What you are talking about isn't evolution. It is abiogenisis and there are several models out there.

I've heard that claim before. It was not mentioned until evolutionists discovered that they were losing the debate on the origin of life. And not all evolutionists actually claim this. Check out the Center for Chemical Evolution webiste. The website itself claims that the formation of life IS apart of the evolutionary theory.

Chemical evolution (straight from dictionary.com) - The formation of complex organic molecules from simpler inorganic molecules through chemical reactions in the oceans during the early history of the Earth; the first step in the development of life on this planet. The period of chemical evolution lasted less than a billion years.

Abiogenesis (straight from dictionary.com) - the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.

---

oh and even if for some reason evolution is flawed then there still needs to explained how species are formed. Even though the silverfox experiment and the nylon bacteria are good examples of evolution

Um, the silverfox experiment selected from preexisting traits. No genetic information was added. In fact, genetic information was removed. You need an example of genetic information being added (injecting DNA from an outside source doesn't count).

Nylon-digesting bacteria is the result of a reshuffling of preexisting genetic information. Not the claimed gene duplication plus frame-shift mutation. Besides, that would only render the duplicated gene worthless. Take the following sentence for example:

"Tomorrow, we will be having turkey for lunch with pumpkin pie for desert."

Let's duplicate it.

"Tomorrow, we will be having turkey for lunch with pumpkin pie for desert."
"Tomorrow, we will be having turkey for lunch with pumpkin pie for desert."

Still not an increase in information. Let's add the frame-shift mutation to the duplicate.

"Tomorrow, we will be having turkey for lunch with pumpkin pie for desert."
"Tomorrow, we weil lb ehavin gturke yfo rlunc hwit hpumpki npi efo rdesert."

That does not look like an increase in information. It just made the duplicate useless.

---

As a side note, using the terms micro and macro evolution should be avoided unless you give a definition. Because without one, it implies that the size of the change is what matters, when in actuality, it's the type of change. Here is my definition.

Micro evolution - a reshuffling or reduction in information content in the genetic code that expresses a specific trait (usually preexisting in a manner identical to potential energy in a log for the fire place) at the expense of another trait.

Macro evolution - an increase in information content in the genetic code.

---

Here is where I got the information. There are plenty of references, mainly in the subpages linked, but there is an inline reference on item number two. The references included are of universities, Nature, Science, NAS, and others.

Creation.com (Loopholes in the evolutionary theory of the origin of life: Summary)

EDIT: Please do not post any of these "abandon thread" nonsense. If you don't want to post, that's fine, but the "abandon thread" posts are inappropriate.

posted on June 16th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Well its clear god evolved from me and my greatness.

All life on earth is modeled after me. Science proves this meny life forms have genetic characteristics from me. God has not come back to earth because I killed him and got that little man out of the way.

This answers the datable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk6ILZAa ... playnext=2

posted on June 16th, 2012, 4:34 pm

Well its clear god evolved from me and my greatness.

All life on earth is modeled after me. Science proves this meny life forms have genetic characteristics from me. God has not come back to earth because I killed him and got that little man out of the way.

This answers the datable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk6ILZAa ... playnext=2

I fail to see how ridicule has significant value here or anywhere else.

posted on June 16th, 2012, 6:22 pm

Au contraire, it's about the only thing that has any value in this thread as it's going nowhere.

posted on June 16th, 2012, 6:27 pm

Perhaps we're forgetting the purpose of this thread. Which is: To scientifically discuss the weaknesses of the theory of evolution. We're only getting nowhere because people are choosing to get nowhere.

EDIT: The purpose of this thread is NOT to ridicule creation or Christianity, but rather to scientifically discuss the weaknesses of the theory of evolution (eg: solutions for those weaknesses or why they are not weaknesses). If that is not what this thread is being used for, then perhaps it would be best to lock it, and keep it for a reference to what happens when one simply tries to scientifically discuss the weaknesses of the theory of evolution, even when alternate theories are to be left out of the discussion.

The thread actually has gone somewhere. Just not in the direction that was intended. When I started this thread, I made every attempt to keep creation out of the discussion and later made it clear that it wasn't supposed to be part of the discussion. Only for it to be injected into the discussion for the singular purpose of being ridiculed.

posted on June 16th, 2012, 8:23 pm

My only question is why bring up this topic here? The majority of people in this community arnt scientists, I mean there are likely many better forums suited for such a topic that have people that actually study the topic. It just seems like a topic that most people that have been on these forums know isnt going to go anywhere here. Im all for debates but such topics require some in depth knowlege and study to know what your talking about, this site just doenst seem like a good place for that. No offence intended to anyone. just my 2 cents.

posted on June 16th, 2012, 8:30 pm

Optec's 5 steps to pocket evolution

Go to the fastfood restaurant of your choice.
Eat with fingers. Do not wash your hands. Touch a petri dish and take it back home.
Let the little guys grow for a while.
Spray disinfectant on it.
Let the survivors grow for a while.
Watch the impressive results.

You can repeat the same experiment with more complex life using slightly modified APERTURES , but it might become illegal or ethically questionable. Optec takes no responsibility for any results.

posted on June 16th, 2012, 8:34 pm

Optec's 5 steps to pocket evolution

Go to the fastfood restaurant of your choice.
Eat with fingers. Do not wash your hands. Touch a petri dish and take it back home.
Let the little guys grow for a while.
Spray disinfectant on it.
Let the survivors grow for a while.
Watch the impressive results.

You can repeat the same experiment with more complex life using slightly modified APERTURES , but it might become illegal or ethically questionable. Optec takes no responsibility for any results.

.........lol

posted on June 16th, 2012, 9:21 pm

I don't normally enter such discussions, and I do understand why people are probably reacting hostily towards this, but I surprisingly have to agree that the information was presented in a way that did not seem religiously bias, even if it was the intent. As far as I'm concerned this thread does have a right to be here.

Optec's 5 steps to pocket evolution

Go to the fastfood restaurant of your choice.
Eat with fingers. Do not wash your hands. Touch a petri dish and take it back home.
Let the little guys grow for a while.
Spray disinfectant on it.
Let the survivors grow for a while.
Watch the impressive results.

You can repeat the same experiment with more complex life using slightly modified APERTURES , but it might become illegal or ethically questionable. Optec takes no responsibility for any results.

I do think think this falls more into the realm of Natural Selection rather then Evolution, something I wholeheartedly believe in because it can be observed, especially with viruses and bacteria because each generation comes about so quickly.

Now I'm not an expert, but these involve mutations of genetics and the physical alteration of species, however it does not account for the creation or appearance of new genes and the formation of an entirely new species, which is what evolution is about One species becoming another over generations of mutations. Every attempt at artificial evolution (Dogs being a prime example), has led to infertile or sterile generations that can't even breed. This leads me to personally come to the conclusion that a species can radically change over time visually and physically to adapt to their environment, but their genes are always going to be the same and they'll never spontaneously gain new ones through mutation. The only way that could be done is through genetic engineering.

Personally i believe micro evolution (adaption of species to their environment, survival of the fittest) is very plausible.

I never believed that macro evolution (genesis of life ) was possible. The odds of the exact components finding each other in the right circumstances to produce building blocks for life are too small to even fathom.

So in accordance with Andre27 I believe in "Micro Evolution," species changing physically over time based on environmental conditions, but never becoming a new species. I'm willing to give "Macro Evolution" credit, but we've just never found any evidence of a species becoming an entirely new one through natural mutation.

The truth is we Humans really only know the tip of the iceberg about anything it seems.

posted on June 16th, 2012, 9:32 pm

TChapman:

"Um, during the middle ages, the general consensus was that the world was round, not flat. The earth being flat was injected into the story of Columbus in the late 1820s by a anti-Christian which was promoted by other anti-Christians the very next decade to slander Christianity. Here's an article on the issue. It makes note of some of the exceptions within the church and (surprisingly) the church didn't address the issue very often, but when they did, they said it was round.
http://creation.com/who-invented-the-flat-earth

For the earth not being the center of the universe, well, that's a different story all together. The church actually welcomed the new heliocentric models of the solar system for (1) they realized that it did not conflict with the Bible and (2) they wanted to get rid of the pagan influence that everything circled the earth. It was the Greek philosophers that forced the founders of the model into science, while it wasn't until much later that layman in the Church (not the leaders) opposed the model. It's really a philosophical decision whether you believe the Milky Way is the center of the universe."

That concensus still developed over time. And while there were elements within the church that welcomed it, others didn't, to the point that the Inquisition took it up occasionally. And for what it's worth, Protestants did sometimes, too. (Luther is fabled to have said that he believe the scriptures which say that when Joshua was chasing the enemy, God commanded the sun to stand still, not the earth.)

Greek philosophy (particularly Aristotle's) influenced and still influences a lot of theology. Over the centuries, this use of philosophy has also been questioned.

posted on June 16th, 2012, 10:10 pm

Optec's 5 steps to pocket evolution

Go to the fastfood restaurant of your choice.
Eat with fingers. Do not wash your hands. Touch a petri dish and take it back home.
Let the little guys grow for a while.
Spray disinfectant on it.
Let the survivors grow for a while.
Watch the impressive results.

You can repeat the same experiment with more complex life using slightly modified APERTURES , but it might become illegal or ethically questionable. Optec takes no responsibility for any results.

Ha! I just sent this to a friend who's studying biology and chemistry. She seemed rather...pleased...with the suggestion. A bit too pleased if you ask me. Next time we meet up, I'm not taking her for lunch.

As for the whole evolution thing. I tend not to get involved. As someone rightly said, the internet is not the right forum for such a thing. Printed words have none of the inflection, and it's easy to read blank text as being filled with anger and vitriol when none is intended. A nice drawing room, with an open fire, and perhaps a bottle of Pepsi is ideal.

posted on June 16th, 2012, 11:04 pm

Equinox1701e: You are probably correct that this is not the right community to discuss scientific issues. Especially those that cause controversy or heated debate. No offense taken.

Optec: That might get you kicked out of the restaurant, so it's probably best to do it at home or in a lab. I doubt that very many homes have the tools necessary to allow you to actually see what's going on. I know that my (beat up) beginners microscope cannot see stuff that small, but it can see the fibrous structure of paper.

Nametz: There will be exceptions in every group. If there's one thing that the origins debates have taught me, is that not everyone agrees on everything, even within certain groups. Where I previously thought that a certain group had full consensus on a specific issue I now find large variations.

Here's a little something that should help with the long day record:
When it comes to the movement of stellar objects, reference frame is key. Not knowing what ones reference frame is can spark unwarranted controversy/debate. In the case of the Bible, the reference frame is (almost) always Earth. Eg: The sunrise and sunset uses Earth as a reference frame. So does Joshua's long day. From the perspective from an observer on earth, the sun sets below the horizon and rises above the horizon, even though technically the earth has rotated to hide or show the sun in that area. With Joshua's long day, from the perspective of an observer on the earth, the sun and moon really did stand still.

Anyways, I hope that helped. And thanks for the extra info on Greek philosophy (and Church history).

Amateur: Let's hope that the surviving bacteria are non-pathogenic (unlikely), that way, nobody gets sick.

You are correct about the internet in general being the wrong place for debates (especially with the risk of misinterpreting the attitude of ones post). However, I think that as long as things are learned from debates, the debate in question is a success. From doing these origins debates, I've been able to home my logic skills quite a bit, and I'm always thinking of better ways to handle things.

posted on June 17th, 2012, 12:05 am

Optec: That might get you kicked out of the restaurant

definitely, people never use their hands in fast food restaurants ... especially in fast food restaurants like (McDonalds, KFC, Burger King, etc.)

posted on June 17th, 2012, 3:22 am

Chapman;

That is one way to look at it. Another way of looking at it using a Lutheran hermenutic (or reference point): the primary purpose of the Scriptures is to reveal God in Law and Gospel. The Law is the hammer by which human broken-ness and preconceptions are smashed. The Gospel is that by which God repairs and restores humanity.

There are things in this world that are simply beyond human control. The coming and going of the tides, the formation of hurricanes and tornadoes, earthquakes, the onset of old age, etc. Although human beings often fret over these things and even strive to exert some control over them, they all remain ultimately untamed.

But while these forces defy humanity, divinity is still another matter. All creation ultimately sits in the hands of God, including humanity. God creates with the intention of having life go on, and creates humanity for the purpose of helping life go on, granting what is needed to fulfill this purpose. This includes new life opened up to us in the Crucifixion and Resurrection. While this does not address all the questions raised by the Joshua text this refers to, it does give a glimpse into who God is.

posted on June 17th, 2012, 5:35 am

Chapman;

That is one way to look at it. Another way of looking at it using a Lutheran hermenutic (or reference point): the primary purpose of the Scriptures is to reveal God in Law and Gospel. The Law is the hammer by which human broken-ness and preconceptions are smashed. The Gospel is that by which God repairs and restores humanity.

There are things in this world that are simply beyond human control. The coming and going of the tides, the formation of hurricanes and tornadoes, earthquakes, the onset of old age, etc. Although human beings often fret over these things and even strive to exert some control over them, they all remain ultimately untamed.

But while these forces defy humanity, divinity is still another matter. All creation ultimately sits in the hands of God, including humanity. God creates with the intention of having life go on, and creates humanity for the purpose of helping life go on, granting what is needed to fulfill this purpose. This includes new life opened up to us in the Crucifixion and Resurrection. While this does not address all the questions raised by the Joshua text this refers to, it does give a glimpse into who God is.

What does this have to do with the topic at hand? Last I cheaked this was about evolution and science...not religion.