Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
The Dude

Origin of Life Debate

Recommended Posts

True. Evolution is valid, taken as Darwin intended. The theory works logically and has been observed in nature. The theory fails, however, when people try to apply it to the orgin of life. Evolution works very well when used to alter specific traits that a species already has. It cannot be used to create new traits. In the case of new abillities, evolutionists fall back on the "lucky monster" theory, that is a completely random genetic mutation that happens to benefit the mutated creature in some way, thereby increasing its chances of survival and eventually out breeding the remaining species without the mutation. Basically just dumb luck. I fail to see how any thinking person can accept that as the orgin of life. For those who would like scientific proof that evolution cannot be used as an orgin theory, please read Darwin's black box by Michael Behe. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=glance&s=books

Please note the editorial review is incorrect. The author does not advocate the existance of god, he merely disproves a current theory without offering a new one. His views are about as unbiased as I've seen.

 

For the reason above, I do not think evolution should be taught in schools as an orgin theory (should only be taught as it was intended). Simply teach that we don't know for sure. Why is it so hard to accept our ignorance on the subject? Children wil accept it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, great post. :beer:

 

I'm not interested in this particular conversation enough to go digging around but I'll throw this out there for you guys....

 

There was a piece written that explains how evolution can't be the way in which creatures such as ourselves came about because something like blod clotting simply couldn't evolve, it'd have to be designed. One nick or cut and you'd bleed to death. :blank:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're refering to the book I mentioned. Excellent read.

Oh.. I must've read it before then. :mrgreen:

 

*can't remember half the stuff he's done*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolution is a valid theory but there are still things we have to find about it. The theory is not yet complete. We are learning more about it. Perhaps there is a reason and we just don't know it yet. Just keep in mind that it is normal to disbelieve evolution can happen. It is a hard concept to grasp because we don't see it in action but that doesn't rule it out.

 

I agree, there are still a lot of things evolution doesn't answer for me but it is the best thing we have right now.

 

My theory is that everything takes faith. Believing in evolution takes faith as does creationism. Where we came from and how we came to be currently is one of the greatests mysteries of mankind.

Edited by amd dude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we/you accept that 'things' can and do evolve, then evolution is fact and therfore ok to teach in the classroom. Anyone saying things don't evolve over time. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we/you accept that 'things' can and do evolve, then evolution is fact and therfore ok to teach in the classroom. Anyone saying things don't evolve over time. :blink:

I agree, it should be taught, just not as the way in which we were created.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True. Evolution is valid, taken as Darwin intended. The theory works logically and has been observed in nature. The theory fails, however, when people try to apply it to the orgin of life.

Of course. Because it isn't intended to explain the origin of life. No big surprise.

 

Science does though have very good explanations. All of them theoretical of course, but they are not the Theory of Evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, evolution CAN be observed in action. If you take several bacteria collonies from the same genetic origin, let them grow and then subject them to a series of bottlenecking events (apply different anti-bacterial compounds in low doses to kill off weaker individuals) you will eventually observe completely differrent genetic combinations that provide the bacteria with their immunity to these compounds.

 

Because evolution takes many generations to bring a completely new species about this is one way to observe it in a reasonable amount of time.

 

A more prominent examples that come to mind are domesticated dogs. We have selectively bred various species to such specialized traits that they have been concidered different subspecies. True speciation has not occured yet, because -baring physical anomalies such as the toy poodle/ great dane combination- these different breeds can still intermix and produce offspring. If something were to occur that reduced all canine populations to either toy poodles and great danes, then it is possible that speciation could occur, given enough subsequent generations of each to prevent genetic recombination.

 

An example of the middle of the process is the Mule... genetically sterile combination of horse and donkey. Both distinct enough to be considered seperate species but from a common ancestor.

 

The reason that Evolution is being mis-applied as the explaination of the Origin of Life is because it is integral to the scientific version. But it is a supporting theory, and to justify the origin of life as proof of evolution is Inductive Reasoning which is not a valid line of reasoning according to the rules of science.

 

If we agree that the time span that science claims for the age of the universe and the existance of life on earth- then it is POSSIBLE that evolution has brought us here. If Creationists are right (those that believe in the 6-10k year time frame) then evolution is very unlikely. In neither case would EVOLUTION be proveable because no one was there to observe it, and there is no evidence to support it at this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, it should be taught, just not as the way in which we were created.

It does not propose to describe how we are created so it would seem to be a moot point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using some logic to think about this: Evolution could NEVER be the explanation of the origin of life. The moment that the various chemicals coalleced into self-replicating molecules that we consider 'life' was closer to spontaneous generation than anything else. There had been no selective process- until that point it had merely been random chemistry. Evolution could only be applied to the subsequent reproductive selection of these molecules... at least as the rules of the theory are concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who would like scientific proof that evolution cannot be used as an orgin theory,

As I keep saying that is a misapplication of evolution theory anyway.

 

 

It cannot be used to create new traits.

Yes, it can. Properly applied evolutionary theory can and does explain new traits. Misapplied it does not. To speak of Darwin theory is like talking about bottle rockets at NASA.... evolutionary theory, evolutionary biology, molecular biology, and genetics are well beyond that now.

 

 

In the case of new abillities, evolutionists fall back on the "lucky monster" theory, that is a completely random genetic mutation that happens to benefit the mutated creature in some way, thereby increasing its chances of survival and eventually out breeding the remaining species without the mutation. Basically just dumb luck.

I would say that is an extremely poor explanation of very good science.

 

 

You do realize that mutations are extremely common and that you have many mutations within your own body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does not propose to describe how we are created so it would seem to be a moot point.

It is not a moot point, however, because when the theory of evolution was taught in the past, they attempted to say that we evolved from apes. They had fun diagrams and everything... and angered a lot of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not a moot point, however, because when the theory of evolution was taught in the past, they attempted to say that we evolved from apes. They had fun diagrams and everything... and angered a lot of people.

Oh I see. I thought "origin" in the context we were speaking meant origin of life. It seems we have two ideas being discussed. The origins of man, and the origins of life.

 

 

As far as what you are saying yes, certainly. In fact we are apes. We didn't evolve "from" them precisely, because we actually are them. Evolutionary science does in fact address that, my comments were regarding the origin of life, which evolution does not explain, nor does it propose to. Science does propose to explain that, but not as evolution.

Edited by Chopdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as what you are saying yes, certainly. In fact we are apes. We didn't evolve "from" them precisely, because we actually are them.

Cousins. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I keep saying that is a misapplication of evolution theory anyway.

 

 

 

Yes, it can. Properly applied evolutionary theory can and does explain new traits. Misapplied it does not. To speak of Darwin theory is like talking about bottle rockets at NASA.... evolutionary theory, evolutionary biology, molecular biology, and genetics are well beyond that now.

 

 

 

 

I would say that is an extremely poor explanation of very good science.

 

 

You do realize that mutations are extremely common and that you have many mutations within your own body.

then you agree the curiculum should be changed. I was taught in school that life evolved from a cingle cell organism. You seem to agree this is false. We have no argument.

 

I would say that was an explanation of poor science in laymen's terms. If you have a different view, please share it, instead of disparaging other's. I understand that mutations occur, however most are cancerous, hardly benefitting the species. Consider the chances of an organism mutating a new ability, such as eyesight, or hearing, or gills. Very tall. Then consider the chances that the lucky organism will live long enough to reproduce, and that its offspring will continue the mutation. Then consider the chances that the lucky offspring will eventually out breed the rest of the unlucky species. I'd say the odds are better for winning the lottery. Repeatedly.

 

Will you give an example of a complex species creating a new trait through evolution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reproduction is Life's Meaning. Our offspring are better adapted and superior. Life and death would be meaningless without evolution, stationary, stagnant, unfluctuating, frozen into duplication, pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Western liberal education is based upon scientific method coupled with an equal degree of literary, historical, poetic and religious training. There simply is no room for religion to take top spot.

 

That's what the zealots hate and that's what we're fighting about.

 

I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolution is a good theory but I think much more needs to be learned out about it.

 

Moon, microevolution does occur. Microevolution is slight changes to a certain type of organism. Macroevolution is a change in species from the evolution of another. So yes, our offspring is always better from microevolution but that doesn't mean that we have to grow more eyes and such to progress. We can progress by adapting slightly to our environment but total evolution is not necessary.

Edited by amd dude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reproduction is Life's Meaning. Our offspring are better adapted and superior. Life and death would be meaningless without evolution, stationary, stagnant, unfluctuating, frozen into duplication, pointless.

If life is just an accident it doesn't have to have a point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...