Loopholes In Origin of Life Theories - Science vs Evolution

posted on June 17th, 2012, 7:41 am

Oh, you are greatly overestimating the cleanliness of fastfood restaurants and underestimating the colorful variety of life. For a start, place a slive of bread at a warm and not-too-dry place. You can see whole chains of evolution and selection going on.
But they probably just don't know about the loopholes.

posted on June 17th, 2012, 2:27 pm

Oh, you are greatly overestimating the cleanliness of fastfood restaurants and underestimating the colorful variety of life. For a start, place a slive of bread at a warm and not-too-dry place. You can see whole chains of evolution and selection going on.
But they probably just don't know about the loopholes.

The thing with selection is, that in all observed cases, it's merely a reshuffling or removal of genetic information. For the theory of evolution to be supported, an increase in genetic information has to occur. Natural selection can only select from what's already there. And although I agree that it can be a mechanism for evolution, there has to be something already there for natural selection to act upon. So, evolution has to happen first, and natural selection has to preserve the evolution that has already happened.

Here's some modifications to the experiment. Before sterilizing the surface, put some of the bacteria into a separate petri dish, sterilize the original, then put the surviving bacteria onto the new, unsterilized surface, and see which ones survive. Eventually, the bacteria that would not survive sterilization should overthrow the bacteria that do survive. This is done by overpopulating the surviving bacteria to the point where the competition for resources becomes too great for the bacteria that survived the sterilization.

Equinox1701e: You are correct. The thread got side-tracked.

posted on June 17th, 2012, 4:10 pm

Cool topic. I also think much about it. I'm in the very same position as Andre and I'm sure I'd enjoy having a beer with you talking about the number of stars, physics and the miraculous complexity of life. I'm very thankful of being able to live and wonder about nature and to have the freedom to stick my nose into this world as much as I want (or don't want when it's to much for my brain).

But before I give my contribution I want to point at one thing. I think this topic can follow a good spirit since it's nothing else than wondering about the beauty of nature and not a reason to argument in a hostile way. I think everyone in this thread should really question himself why he want to participate in this thread. To wonder about the beauty and to challenge our knowledge in a respectful way or to summon a harmful debate that brings nothing but shame on humanity. Some comments here really raise doubts of ones intentions and the ability of treating each other with respect and love, which are our greatest values to live in peace. I remind you that there is no sense of community when there is no common moral instance. It leads to destruction and chaos. You have the freedom to leave this thread alone and remain on your position. Further I think we should stop trying to ban belief out of our vocabulary to explain life. Every research question develops out of an idea. An idea is believed in and researched with the tools we have. In this realm belief and knowledge will always be together. In a universe influenced by time (dynamic) one can't exist without the other when you throw in a self-aware being. I find it narrow-minded and misleading to say that there is no God and even state it is an invention of our brains because we need the illusion of security. If this being exists it certainly does not depend on us it's rather the opposite way. Who are we to say our realm is the only existent one and in this realm there is no evidence of a God or there is evidence against a God thus there is no God? Maybe we are only sitting inside an ever expanding veil starring at mirror-walls and we try to understand the stunning greatness it offers even though we somehow feel that we should be outside the veil and that there is something else , something unexplainable around us and in us. I say we better take the tools we have to dig around in the mirror and be happy for what we discover. Certainly another piece of the great picture even though flawed - but beautiful.


Optec, I find your argumentation with the microbial selection lacking. It is one thing to have fast replicating single cell organisms to make me understand the mechanism of evolution. Here I just want to say that the more complex life becomes it is more likely to stay unaffected by evolutionary processes (but rather lead to distinction which I differenciate from evolution) and thus to form new life forms once you apply "by chance" as determining factor. You can see my avatar which mimics a misleading picture of a Drosophila fly. It looks like it's starring at you but in fact it sits on a plate and you see on the "back head" of it. I cut this one out of a print media and positioned it the why as it looked like it starred at me with that weird look when I was laying on the couch. A nice metaphor for the matter we are talking about here. Anyways... this fly is heavily used in evolutionary research and it is multi-cellular. The forces of selection and other mechanisms of evolution can also be observed here aswell and it shows that those are not as likely to adapt or fundamentally change to new environmental conditions as bacteria or viruses. And we not even start to talk about mammals or reptiles. The self regulating forces within life to reject any harmful or missleading information are at least as strong as the next text block (the matter of chance) tries to explain. In addition I challenge the current theory further. In all these billions of years there were no mutation that somehow broke out of that order and for example have such a great selective superiority that would suppress all other life forms. Only one life form seems to have broken out of these laws of order. Highly interesting, if you ask me.

So here my doubts of an evolution by chance is challenged and it lies within the laws of chance itself. You apply millions of years or billions I have problems to believe that the complexity of life we see today is the result of an unaltered law such as that. How many new species developed in average in a period of 1 million years? The stacking behavior of the formation of life (in form of addition of meaningful information) for me raises the questions: Could it be that there was a time when there was a really dense cumulation of events (e.g. for a period of 400 Mio. years) that lead to a huge base stock of life forms that simultaniously during the ongoing evolution further evolved to greater variation by following the law of chance and natural selection? If this is the case the laws of chance form a fix framework (such as the anomaly of water) that keep the universe in shape and balance but were altered by a self-aware, creational being such as us (at least we have evidence that there exist self-aware beings). It's only the natural state of existence of matter, energy, information and spirit we consist of. Why not bend it by the means of information that could have the potential to bend matter, energy, spirit, time and what else we not know?

Here and there I have been thinking of it for years... guess it's time to read some papers on that one in the coming years. Information. I always wondered how powerful information is in the hirarchy of the columns of the universe we are living in. The science of information is very young and increases in spin since we have the capacity to process it in greater quantity, but I believe it will reveal a great portion of answers we seek for the topic we are talking about here. Further I believe it is much more linked to matter, energy and spirit than we think. It might even be the strongest of all columns or even not a column but the core of all things. Without forcing religious tendencies in here but to emphesize the importance even from that angle I want to state the lines: In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and God was the word... brained and written by a dude called John 2000 years ago. Those words are even more stunning today than during the time of the Roman Empire. "The word" is nothing else but information. If this is the case we might deal with the holy grail of life, no, of the existence of things itself. And it could turn out to deliver the knowledge we need to give the great picture more contrast be it for or against a God. Since I'm not very knowledgeable in this matter but would like to extend the conversation of evolution in the spotlight of information I invite you to pick it up. What are your thoughts to challenge the current state of knowledge or to justify it? So far I have big doubts that the formation of life as an accumulation of meaningful information (even though it is stacked over millions of years) could be a product of chance again that follows the normal distribution. My brain hurts...I stop here and leave it to you.

posted on June 17th, 2012, 4:25 pm

In all these billions of years there were no mutation that somehow broke out of that order and for example have such a great selective superiority that would suppress all other life forms. Only one life form seems to have broken out of these laws of order. Highly interesting, if you ask me.

Viruses, bacteria? Oh, maybe you mean insects, perhaps ants? Ok, maybe plankton, algae? Nah, what does he mean... a 'Darwinian Demon' is not in existence for any species. It's tomfoolery to argue that humans are some sort of "great suppressor" that betrays "laws of order" and belies understanding of biology and physics.

Similarly, it's just as foolish to believe that anybody who has contributed to this "debate" so far has much more to add than philosophical arguments. There are no evolutionary biologists/chemists here - nobody who studies the field that's being discussed, and could therefore provide real input and discuss all the points taken out of context. Aka, the irony of a discussion that's not supposed to be about creationsim, but has cited literature from a site called "creation.com". It's just like when we choose to discuss Star Trek physics with the pseudo-backdrop of real world physics. All you end up with are lots of philosophy and ideas that make sense to some of us, but which are pretty much contorted, poorly manifested arguments about the field that is supposed to be discussed.

My only point here is to say to everybody, step back and admire our community's collective hubris, for it is indeed great, and steaming.

posted on June 17th, 2012, 5:20 pm

In all these billions of years there were no mutation that somehow broke out of that order and for example have such a great selective superiority that would suppress all other life forms. Only one life form seems to have broken out of these laws of order. Highly interesting, if you ask me.

Viruses, bacteria? Oh, maybe you mean insects, perhaps ants? Ok, maybe plankton, algae? Nah, what does he mean... a 'Darwinian Demon' is not in existence for any species. It's tomfoolery to argue that humans are some sort of "great suppressor" that betrays "laws of order" and belies understanding of biology and physics.

Similarly, it's just as foolish to believe that anybody who has contributed to this "debate" so far has much more to add than philosophical arguments. There are no evolutionary biologists here - nobody who studies the field that's being discussed, and could therefore provide real input and discuss all the points taken out of context. It's just like when we choose to discuss Star Trek physics with the pseudo-backdrop of real world physics. All you end up with are lots of philosophy and ideas that make sense to some of us, but which are pretty much contorted, poorly manifested arguments about the field that is supposed to be discussed.

So you say we are disqualified to talk about this topic because we have not the amount of knowledge nor the needed open mindedness to cope with the dimension of it? This is nothing else but a killer argument, unfair and as dangerous as spreading false information itself. Who do you think has the right to exclusively tell me the validity of the theory of life? Neil A. Campbell et al. 2003? The biology science committee of the world? Just because it's hurting your understanding of evolution (since you are deeply into it ) doesn't mean I can sit back and stop hurting you with my unqualified babbling. I can calm you down. This thread will not come to a final answer, it doesn't seek to destroy Darwins idea or undermine your knowledge. It tries to invite you to share the expertise so TChap and me can correct our limited world view if we are wrong. But saying you are disqualified is unacceptable.

You know, a colleague of mine always states: "It is nothing special about finding a correlation between two factors. Nowadays, a scientific paper only gets published, and is considered to be of great value, when there are correlations proving causalities. Research that reveals no correlation is not published or considered low value even though it is of much greater value to find not a correlation because you can confidently say there is no causality." I learn: Finding something that does not exist, even though it should be there, is a very great find.

I have to ask myself why a critical review of that kind provokes such hostile reactions in so many people and especially in those who have expertise. You should be happy to share your knowledge for the ones who have gaps.
And stay calm. With great certainty there will be a time when you no longer have to bother with research that sees more than matter and chance. No dealing with God, Belief, moral instances or anything that makes you feel responsible to but yourself. Granted. Ewm is one happy person and a good example.

Edit:

Just a few hints:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 4704002022

http://www.pnas.org/content/98/10/5446.short

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/277/5325/494.short

http://www.springerlink.com/content/m32335437x61l555/

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... x/abstract

and so on... So much to that matter.

posted on June 17th, 2012, 5:53 pm

Unfortunately you quoted the pre-edited version, so you might have lost a few choice comments .

Let's not mince words: the purpose of this thread was not to investigate the origins of life, it was to state what is right, and what is wrong. That is the epitome of wrongheadedness and is a very dangerous precept. There was no quoting of sources, no analysis of them - merely a series of near quotes from creationist websites. This argument has nothing to do with sharing knowledge - there are plenty of avenues that are available for that noble purpose - but is instead about reinforcing one's own beliefs.

If one wants to talk about what makes science, science, and what's right or wrong about how that process is done, then everybody should and can do that and is qualified to do so - rather than cherry picking what one personally chooses to believe in or not, regardless of the science behind it.

As for the Darwinian Demon argument that you added in: arguing about humanity's impact on the planet is fundamentally different than arguing that we have the biggest role to play. Cyanobacteria are factually much more important for biota than humans, due to that certain thing we call a livable atmosphere. Our ability to destroy/damage/alter environments is not the same concept as the hypothetical Darwinian Demon.

posted on June 17th, 2012, 6:13 pm

oh, my scenario above was not meant to describe or explain evolution, I just wanted to point out how populations can react on drastically changing environmental conditions and - if you had a lucky hand.. literally - even a species which was superior can dominate the whole petri dish afterwards. Also, if you repeat the process multiple times (and if you keep a half-way sterile environment) you can even see how less and less individual organisms die as the more resistant ones survive. We did this back in school with mold, which works even better and creates nice and colorful colonies

This small scenario was just to show how biological mechanisms are ticking all around, on and in us every day, as they were questioned earlier in this thread.

By the way, i recently saw a gallery of petri dish art, where they picked species and manipulated their growth to generate nice images!

posted on June 17th, 2012, 6:38 pm

Stupid enought that these threads are a hot spot for US American fanatics, these people really think they are in a position or even capable of dicussion these topics on a scientific level including the required depth in literature and such. This matter is NOT about "logics" or "analytical ability" or something...you need an open mind and a large body of knowledge to argue for or against it.

And the even funnier thing is that they start to be huffy once you say somthing against their "scientific questions". Evidence is directly given in this thread:

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

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.

Similarly, it's just as foolish to believe that anybody who has contributed to this "debate" so far has much more to add than philosophical arguments. There are no evolutionary biologists/chemists here - nobody who studies the field that's being discussed, and could therefore provide real input and discuss all the points taken out of context. Aka, the irony of a discussion that's not supposed to be about creationsim, but has cited literature from a site called "creation.com". It's just like when we choose to discuss Star Trek physics with the pseudo-backdrop of real world physics. All you end up with are lots of philosophy and ideas that make sense to some of us, but which are pretty much contorted, poorly manifested arguments about the field that is supposed to be discussed.

My only point here is to say to everybody, step back and admire our community's collective hubris, for it is indeed great, and steaming.

Arguments such as these are the exact reason why these type of threads are never productive. Your arguments that we are not "qualified" to discuss the origins of life(which is an entirely philosophical issue, as science requires both observation and reproduction) seem more close-minded to me than anything that has been presented thus far by either side. To think that you must be part of some elite class of society, a learned Scientist, to discuss these things is a nearly the definition of close-minded. What do you suggest qualifies someone to talk about such matters? Having a degree? You can get those online. Having a PhD? You can get those while still in your 20's and by simply writing a paper. How many years does someone have to study such a topic to become qualified to discuss it? Besides that, how does one study the origins of life? Through careful observation of controlled experiments, or by simply looking at the active world around us? Do I have to have a degree or publish a book to be an expert on the world around me? I certainly don't have to to observe an experiment. In fact, most so-called scientists never even do experiments themselves, but write books based on the observations of others. In reality, to accurately study such a topic with science, one would have to reproduce the entire process in which life began. This has not happened. And it could not since we neither know the process, nor exact result. All other forms of simulation are simply based on assumptions, which are no better than conjecture. In this case, since no human would have existed to observe the process in which life began, the only way to discuss it is logically and philosophically. And you certainly don't have to have special qualifications to discuss logic or philosophy.


Will you only accept the views of a person if those views are bound and published, with a degree in a form of science? I find it sad that such intelligent people can't even have a civil discussion and must resort arguments to this.

posted on June 17th, 2012, 7:18 pm

TCR does seem to go down the same path that many alternative theories follow, that is to state a "fact", then explain how this causes that, that causes the other, etc etc, until "proving" creation or "discrediting" evolution. Unfortunately, it all hinges on whether the first fact is correct or not. And in more than one of TCRs posts in this very thread, he's begun with entirely incorrect statements and/or assumptions, leading to me skipping the remainder of the posts (as it becomes irrelevant).

The Miller experiment assumes that creation of life was caused by an electrical spark. What evidence is there, showing that that is how it must have happened? Far from inescapable, it's wildly circumstantial. The failure of the Miller experiment to create life in the "new" (also theoretical) atmosphere is not a loophole at all, and does not discredit or weaken the evolution theory one bit.

Over the years, I've found myself having less and less time for these "discussions", claiming to "disprove" evolution, having such propaganda-type headlines as "science vs evolution". In my opinion (note: opinion, not trying to portray it as "inescapable" "fact"), evolution is like gravity: We don't know precisely how or why it works, but it's pretty clear that it does.

And TCR, you are claiming to be trying to keep Creationism out of the thread, but you did create this thread based on information you've been reading on creationism.com... Not the best source for impartial information. A lot of the stuff on that website does fall victim to the "based on an assumption" thing I described at the beginning of this post. Find me a scientific reference for any of your opinions, and I would be happy to participate further. Until then, I have nothing more to say in this non-discussion.

posted on June 17th, 2012, 8:19 pm

I think here, Adm. Zaxxon, that you've missed the point in anger.

Just like any job - such as an economist, an architect, a plumber - one is expected to know your field before being able to do certain things -> like wiring a house, or designing an earthquake-resistant skyscraper. It's not close mindedness and it's certainly not hubris, but if you expect to get anywhere in any field, you have to know your material.

Cherry picking particular examples without going above and beyond and searching for information and learning the why is a quick way to discredit oneself. You can teach yourself how to do any field, and as long as you have enough information you can get far. However, if you leave out how to fireproof your walls, you'll soon learn you've just burnt down a building. An emeritus professor can be as ignorant as a freshman if they don't keep up and don't keep up their sharp wit.

A good scientific argument doesn't need to be published, but it most certainly needs to use falsifiable hypotheses and to try as hard as possible to review the literature - if it's not part of the scientific method, it's not science.

posted on June 17th, 2012, 8:53 pm

Unfortunately you quoted the pre-edited version, so you might have lost a few choice comments .

Let's not mince words: the purpose of this thread was not to investigate the origins of life, it was to state what is right, and what is wrong. That is the epitome of wrongheadedness and is a very dangerous precept. There was no quoting of sources, no analysis of them - merely a series of near quotes from creationist websites. This argument has nothing to do with sharing knowledge - there are plenty of avenues that are available for that noble purpose - but is instead about reinforcing one's own beliefs.

If one wants to talk about what makes science, science, and what's right or wrong about how that process is done, then everybody should and can do that and is qualified to do so - rather than cherry picking what one personally chooses to believe in or not, regardless of the science behind it.

As for the Darwinian Demon argument that you added in: arguing about humanity's impact on the planet is fundamentally different than arguing that we have the biggest role to play. Cyanobacteria are factually much more important for biota than humans, due to that certain thing we call a livable atmosphere. Our ability to destroy/damage/alter environments is not the same concept as the hypothetical Darwinian Demon.

I fully support you on his purpose.

But for Christ's sake! TChap doesn't know better. He's a victim of his indoctrinated environment so as everyone. Maybe insight of him a young person is searching for a place that does not demand to decide for one party, a place were people are not bashing each other if atheists are right or if God is real and made the world. I'm so sick of this lasting "scientific" controversy and each side claims to be right. Non of them is. So called "creationists" are stupid, consumed by their own blindness that lost any God given reason. So as the great lights of science such as Hawking and many other plain insulting figures. He wrote a book that claims to prove that God does not exist. I would not dare to even think one could prove the existence of God or the opposite by scientific means. Their mind is so blown, it hurts every time I read an article that enters the chorus of the God haters. It's a shame and I happily contribute to a "creationist" motivated thread to bring people like TChap to a level of understanding that is not infested by the hatred and misleading motivation you smell everywhere when one party opens the mouth. On the other side I wish to bring atheists a step further in their misguided views, driven by the fear that it could be true that God exists. They cause insane pain when they are on their holy forum missions of arguing that belief in God is the main reason for war on this planet and the evidence for evolution were the ultimate weapon to kill God. Bullshit - all of it. When does the world already learn that science and belief in God is not contradictory but mutual! When does the world already learn, that a religion does not represent a divine instance but only a human made construct that is influenced and used by God but at the same time underlies the same weaknesses as any other human institution. Why do I have to deny a being that I can experience just because you don't? For me it's like denying the existence of my mom just because you never had one.
For me science does both, it proves God and it disproves him at the same time. But it doesn't matter to me. My belief has withstood these tensions because my rationale comes part after part. Once I reach the state of ultimate knowledge I'm allowed to speak out the final conclusion. So long for me 6 genesis days are 400 Mio. human years and Jesus did not create bread and fish out of nothing but he made people to share what they had hidden under their cloths because they were stingy and self-centered.

Now I'd really like to talk about the current version of the theory of the origin of life, how it has evolved during the past decades and if the matter of information could have a greater impact on the theory. The last time I was speaking with a biologist about genetics she said that entire evolutionary strings of micro organism species relations needed to be reorganized, including archae bacteria and fungi. Much of the evidence from previous decades about this domains and their role during evolution were lacking under the new light of better technology. Does anyone know of an interesting study that deals with the matter of information and how it influence biology.

I had an idea a year ago or so. What if matter does not only carry information in the way of how it is organized such as is DNA with the base pairs which can be decoded to form a new protein. But it can also carry information on an atomic level? If I'm not totally misguided a certain behavior of electrons that circulate the water molecule could be interpreted as information. Information must be transferable independently from matter. So it could be transferred to an amino acid which in turn carry this information to places in the cell that are able to read this different "code" of the amino acid and identify it as harmful or as positive stimulus. Next would be a physiological reaction. On a greater scale this could explain the appearance of allergies. It could also explain why certain bacteria withstand attacks of UV-rays but have not the information on the DNA to form a substance that detoxify the radiation (this is just hypothetical). You get me? If something like this would turn out to be true it would have a great impact on the origin of species. It could prove that material information is not the only way to explain the development of the first carbon based, functional complex that floated around in the primeval soup.

posted on June 17th, 2012, 9:06 pm

I think here, Adm. Zaxxon, that you've missed the point in anger.

Please don't mistake what I have said for anger. I knew I should have put more smileys in there.

Just like any job - such as an economist, an architect, a plumber - one is expected to know your field before being able to do certain things -> like wiring a house, or designing an earthquake-resistant skyscraper. It's not close mindedness and it's certainly not hubris, but if you expect to get anywhere in any field, you have to know your material.

True, but just because you are not an economist, it doesn't mean you are not qualified to discus the economy. (and just because you are not an electrician, doesn't mean you won't try to wire your house) And sure, if we were trying to 'do' science or try to recreate the process in which life was formed, you would need much more experience than I'm sure even you have. However, Just because we are not scientists, doesn't mean we aren't qualified to talk about the origin of life. Nor does it make our arguments less credible just because we haven't done the work or cited a source. Do you think everyone in this thread makes up their "facts" or are they getting them from their research? All you have to do is present facts that contradict theirs, not dismiss their arguments because you think they are unqualified to even submit an opinion.

Cherry picking particular examples without going above and beyond and searching for information and learning the why is a quick way to discredit oneself. You can teach yourself how to do any field, and as long as you have enough information you can get far. However, if you leave out how to fireproof your walls, you'll soon learn you've just burnt down a building. An emeritus professor can be as ignorant as a freshman if they don't keep up and don't keep up their sharp wit.

A good scientific argument doesn't need to be published, but it most certainly needs to use falsifiable hypotheses and to try as hard as possible to review the literature - if it's not part of the scientific method, it's not science.

Yes, and if they haven't done their research, then it should be easy to show where they are wrong right? Your statement is that if I pick an example, don't do extra research on the matter, and ignore the 'why'(whatever that is) I will discredit myself. I don't quite understand what you are trying to say there, but If I do, then you are saying that one must not only view one example, but look at the big picture before drawing conclusions. I would agree, but you must also keep in mind that you can never see the entire picture. There is an old argument that says something similar to, "Just because scientists haven't found a white crow, doesn't mean one doesn't exist." You can conclude that there is no white crow, but even if you have gone"above and beyond and searched for information and learned the why," you are wrong in your conclusion. You have never seen one, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Obviously, this argument has limitations,(flying spaghetti monster anyone?) and we call those Logic, and Philosophy.

Your last statement sounds like you are saying that good scientific arguments are ones that agree with the literature that you have read, but maybe that's just me. Either way, you can't dismiss peoples arguments because they have no degree, and are based on literature you might not be familiar with. I can guarantee you, none of the arguments used in this thread are original.

posted on June 17th, 2012, 9:30 pm

Well, we know that there are some gaps in the evolution theory now, so what? The answer can't be to step 2000years back to some antique religion. "Oh, we can't explain everything with evolution, so let's stick to religion, since that doesn't have to explain anything at all."
Bring in real alternative theories into the discussion please, not nonsense.

posted on June 17th, 2012, 10:53 pm

On the other side I wish to bring atheists a step further in their misguided views, driven by the fear that it could be true that God exists.

i will just step in and say that the definition of an atheist is that they do not believe in a gods existence. they do not see proof of one and therefor see none.

to be fearful of something you must believe it exists.
this also means that atheists are not devil worshipers as they do not believe the devil exists either.
they do not fear hell as to an atheist it does not exist and do not look forward to heaven as they do not believe it exists.

i would say your meaning is more inline with an agnostic , they are unsure or the existence of a god so could be fearful of it being real.

of course with so many people in this world there will be differences in opinions as to how people see things based on what they have access to or being told.


personally i think if you want to find out the truth about something you must walk into the room without any of your personal ideas and beliefs (be it any way inclined). just look at what you see without injecting what you want to see. look at all the pieces and try to work out how the puzzle fits together. if something doesnt make sense, keep trying but dont assume it any way other than "still unanswered"

the trouble with subjects like these is that it questions a persons whole way of seeing the world. it is extremely hard not to talk about something so sensitive without upsetting someone or discussing it while sitting in the middle rather than on one side of the fence or the other.

now back to the home page

posted on June 18th, 2012, 12:09 am

The purpose of this thread is to scientifically discuss the weaknesses of evolution WITHOUT bringing creation into the mix. NOT to make one side or the other look stupid, which is just what has happened here. But to be blunt, both creation AND evolution are religions, so any debate will be religion vs religion, NOT science vs religion. It seems that so far, there has been ZERO discussion on the weaknesses, just ridicule and discussions on things that is IRRELEVANT to this thread.

---

Someone said that the Miller experiments failing are not a problem for evolution. Discussing why that is (scientifically) would be fulfillment of the threads purpose. I'll start by stating my opinions on why it is a problem for evolution.

1) None of the Miller Experiment variations have ever produced life (with the exception of the trap, the Miller-type experiments are supposed to be simulations of natural environments that allegedly produced life).
2) Experiments that cheat and put all of the components for life in a lifeless environment, no life is ever formed (if life is supposed to come together from non-life, then having all of the components there should be sufficient to create life).
3) Life has never been observed to come from non-life, ever (life has to be observed to come from non-life in order to support evolution).
4) Any process that creates organic compounds will destroy them even faster, prohibiting life from forming (the more time it takes for life to form from non-life, the less likely it is to form before the components are destroyed).

---

Please don't treat this post as an intentionally inflammatory post. It was not designed to be that way, but rather to put the thread back on topic.