[Blobert]

(06-05-2015 10:17 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 09:54 PM)storm Wrote:  

However, suppose for a moment that there is no origin story. Time goes back infinitely. There is no beginning. At any point in time you can look back further, exactly like at any point in time you can look forward. Then by sheer volume of time alone and by the nonzero probability of molecules just happening to show up in the right place at the right time we, with certainty, will see exactly this situation show up at some point.

Bertrand Russell already has a Nobel Prize.

But you don't have an infinite amount of time. You have 4.5 billion years, the age of the Earth according to science. That's the amount of time you have to somehow turn a rock into a human being. You must explain how DNA spontaneously evolves out of a rock to even begin to entertain the idea of evolution. Most proponents of this idiotic theory overlook this (probably because they haven't actually thought about it and take it on faith) and just focus on the idea that apes evolved into humans, completely ignoring the earlier steps of the process which require DNA to appear out of nowhere, and then somehow, prevailing against odds which cannot even begin to be calculated, that DNA mutates perfectly hundreds of billions of times in order to evolve millions of different complex species.

And remember, it all started with a rock that one day randomly turned into a living organism.

Incredibly, this is all somehow regarded as "science" and not "scientific religion".

So open this a bit. Why must I know the origin of life to entertain the idea of evolution? What the hell does evolution mean in your context, if not the usual speciation Darwin et al talk about?

[scorpion]

(06-05-2015 10:17 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

So, to clarify, people are debating the legitmacy of evolution as the best explanation for the origin of species?

OK, up to you. http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/09/r...nerations/

Yes, this is basically the standard experimental "proof" for evolution: observing minor genetic changes in bacteria over tens of thousands of generations, and extrapolating this genetic drift as evidence that DNA spontaneously emerged out of rocks and randomly formed all life on the planet.

Amazingly enough, and despite their best efforts to the contrary, in their countless experiments scientists have yet to observe bacteria evolve into anything besides subsequent generations of bacteria.

[scorpion]

(06-05-2015 10:38 PM)Blobert Wrote:  

So open this a bit. Why must I know the origin of life to entertain the idea of evolution? What the hell does evolution mean in your context, if not the usual speciation Darwin et al talk about?

Because if I ask you to count to ten starting at zero, how are you going to get there without the number one?

If evolution has no logical starting point, how does it even get off the ground? How can a plane fly across the country if it was never built in the first place? How can you propose that apes evolved into humans if you have absolutely no explanation for where the DNA that all life is composed of evolved in the first place?

It's completely laughable. The theory breaks down from the very beginning, which is obvious to anyone who has actually examined it, and why the fact that evolution is totally faith-based is self-evident. Evolution is simply a modern religion based on science and fueled by man's near-infinite hubris.

[Phoenix]

It is not faith-based because I have no faith in it. It must meet my rigorous standards of objective metaphysics or I will discard it for a thereby superior theory. As it stands, it is the best theory, and one that will mostly likely be kept and become increasingly accurate as studies continue.

The starting point was the natural existence of the base chemicals in the oceans. The 'primordial soup'.

[storm]

(06-05-2015 10:17 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

But you don't have an infinite amount of time. You have 4.5 billion years, the age of the Earth according to science. That's the amount of time you have to somehow turn a rock into a human being. You must explain how DNA spontaneously evolves out of a rock to even begin to entertain the idea of evolution. Most proponents of this idiotic theory overlook this

OK. I do not pretend to understand biology so I am considering the probability that either happened from cosmic radiation alone. Certainly this chance is a lower bound. From this perspective both are extremely unlikely to occur, which is why I treat them identically. That is why I overlooked it.

I think you misunderstood what I meant about infinite time. What happened before the earth? Scientists today say it was the big bang. Before the big bang? Impossible to know. What if there were lots of big bangs and big crunches? What if there was something even more bizarre? The idea of time just starting at some t=0 is exactly as inconceivable as time suddenly ending. What does that even mean, time ending? It's difficult to imagine in physical terms.

If you buy that, then the naive probabilistic argument given above is convincing.

Of course this perspective is a rather cold one detached from the rich structure of reality (EDIT: translation: it would not be out of place as the plot of an episode of the Twilight Zone) but the general idea is consistent with what is usually put forth. A chemist might be able to make a more precise argument revolving around the strength of the bonds, the stability of various molecular structures, the prevalence of certain atoms, and so on. Perhaps someone will chime in.

Additionally. Suppose time is finite. I expect that if you worked hard you could actually calculate an approximation of the probability of each fundamental building blocks forming based on chemistry. I would not be surprised to find someone already did. Remember, of course, that this is a bit like the birthday paradox: we don't want the probability of this happening on OUR planet, but of it happening on ANY planet, EVER. =

Personally I have no interest in such calculations - or for that matter, any science which is not falsifiable - but I encourage any interested reader to explore the topic in depth.

[Blobert]

(06-05-2015 10:49 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 10:38 PM)Blobert Wrote:  

So open this a bit. Why must I know the origin of life to entertain the idea of evolution? What the hell does evolution mean in your context, if not the usual speciation Darwin et al talk about?

Because if I ask you to count to ten starting at zero, how are you going to get there without the number one?

If evolution has no logical starting point, how does it even get off the ground? How can a plane fly across the country if it was never built in the first place? How can you propose that apes evolved into humans if you have absolutely no explanation for where the DNA that all life is composed of evolved in the first place?

It's completely laughable. The theory breaks down from the very beginning, which is obvious to anyone who has actually examined it, and why the fact that evolution is totally faith-based is self-evident. Evolution is simply a modern religion based on science and fueled by man's near-infinite hubris.

It's not about counting from zero to ten though. That's a nonsensical comparison. Of course we have better understanding of more recent past, from which there's more material to work with. You can very easily propose humans evolved from apes, without knowing where DNA comes from. When searching your family tree, you can know who your grand-grandfather was without knowing who his parents were.

A theory can have big unknown gaps and still be the most sensible one we have to work with.

Did Darwin not believe in evolution, since he didn't have a fully developed theory on the origin of life?

[ElBorrachoInfamoso]

Many scientific theories have weak or nonexistent origin stories. Most theories in physics have no satisfactory explanation for why exactly they take the functional form they do. Who gave them that form? Is it because of the geometry of space-time? That still does not provide a satisfactory answer. Who folded space-time into its current shape?

Maybe it was God or powerful aliens or Uncle Roosh.

Eventually, we move from the questions that science has some hope of answering within our lifetimes to questions that are best left to philosophers.
If the theory works in the sense of making testable predictions, then we should continue using it until we have a better theory.
Observations of Mercury's orbit helped proved Newtonian gravity wrong a few decades before Einstein's relativity provided a more (pun intended) general theory. But people continue to use Newtonian gravity in situations where it makes accurate predictions. If the theory does not make accurate predictions, throw it out. If another theory makes the exact same predictions, then use whichever theory you prefer.

[scorpion]

I find it bizarre that so many people are able to base their entire worldview around a concept which they readily admit has no beginning. It really doesn't bother anyone that you believe that DNA evolves over time, and yet have absolutely no explanation (beyond the magical "primordial soup") for how DNA spontaneously emerged from a lifeless rock in the first place? How are you able to overlook this gaping hole which collapses the entire theory from the very start? It's just completely inconsistent thinking. This is supposed to be the intelligent and scientifically rigorous position, and yet it has absolutely no logical basis whatsoever.

Atheist-evolutionary logic: "I believe that the universe exploded into existence for no reason, and that all life forms in their infinite complexity evolved spontaneously from rocks. This is obviously a much more logical idea than the universe being created by God."

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." (Rom. 1:22)

[Phoenix]

So you will just glance over responses to this? I'll have to repeat then.

Primordial soup. Primordial soup. Primordial soup. The ocean contained the necessary base chemicals. Rocks had nothing to do with it.

Respond.

[Americas]

Yeah, not sure where this "lifeless rock transformed into life" idea came from; that's not what is proposed as a theory at all and regardless is a total misunderstanding of what would have possibly happened.

[Americas]

(06-05-2015 02:24 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

You didn't comprehend what I wrote. Dogma is the idea that your beliefs cannot be wrong. Having a belief isn't a dogma, but thinking your ideas are immune to criticism is dogma.

And again, I don't see anyone claiming that evolution is the only possible right belief. Look at what Phoenix wrote, that is what most people who actually read and understand the basic science act: they don't hold beliefs like in religion, they accept the theory for it's internal and external validity until something more concrete comes a long.

Quote:

Then why are so many people freaking out? What's with all the meltdowns and strawmen arguments?

You do realize this is a straw man right? No one is having a 'meltdown' here. The fact that you are over-exaggerating the reactions of these people and then claiming that because of this reaction people are dogmatic is in fact a straw man argument.

Quote:

Before Gregor Mendel, Darwin's theory of natural selection made no sense to 95% of people. Mendel's understanding of genetics gave a mechanism to describe how natural selection could occur, but before that no one took Darwin seriously.

There's been hundreds of books written about this, fyi.

http://www.scientus.org/Mendel-Darwin.html

For a "scientist" such as yourself, shouldn't you know this?

Lots of people took Darwin seriously it's just one man can't explain away a massive paradigm-breaking scientific theory. We keep coming back to this, and I am not sure why:

The subsequent building of theories and their modifications is no reason not to accept a scientific theory.

Quote:

Right, but to insist on calling it the same theory all along is nothing but nomenclature. Meaningless word games played by "scientists" who have too much ego invested into an idea.

Right, again, the insistence on nomenclature is pointless man. Evolution today is nothing like Darwin understood it, to keep calling it evolution is disingenuous.

It is the same theory, it is the theory of evolution. Does that mean it cannot change? No. Does that mean Darwin's work still remains an important pillar in the discipline? No.

Virtually every scientist that works on evolution understands the impact of Darwin's work and recognizes his work as a pillar of evolutionary theory. Not sure why you are arguing it isn't.

Quote:

I understand this but it doesn't matter. Without empirical evidence it's hard to make claims of science.

There is more empirical evidence point to evolution than possibly any scientific theory or fact. The amount of fossils that have been dug up and preserved considering how unlikely fossils are in the first place is astonishing.

Quote:

How do you know?

Because we have millions of observations that confirm that evolution has and is taking place. We can see it happening on a micro and macro scale. So we understand that this process is happening and we have proved it a million times over. So in that sense it is unlikely to be wrong. Could it be totally wrong? Highly unlikely but still possible.

We don't understand every working part of why it occurs and are still trying to figure out many mechanisms and driving forces. That doesn't mean the process we are observing isn't happening or that evolution as a theory is totally wrong.

[scorpion]

(06-06-2015 08:06 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

So you will just glance over responses to this? I'll have to repeat then.

Primordial soup. Primordial soup. Primordial soup. The ocean contained the necessary base chemicals. Rocks had nothing to do with it.

Respond.

Ok, so how did the primordial soup emerge from a rock?

Where did the ocean and the "base chemicals" come from, and how did they miraculously assemble themselves into complex DNA?

There is no logical explanation for how chemical reactions in the primordial oceans resulted in the formation of DNA. This is an idea you must accept on faith. There's absolutely nothing scientific about it.

[scorpion]

(06-06-2015 08:30 AM)Americas Wrote:  

Because we have millions of observations that confirm that evolution has and is taking place. We can see it happening on a micro and macro scale. So we understand that this process is happening and we have proved it a million times over.

You have observed macro-evolution? So you have seen an ape turn into a human being?

I don't even think you know what macroevolution means.

Like most people supporting evolutionary theory, you're completely ignorant about even the basics of what it actually purports, and simply have accepted the general idea based on faith.

[Americas]

(06-06-2015 08:38 AM)scorpion Wrote:  

You have observed macro-evolution? So you have seen an ape turn into a human being?

I don't even think you know what macroevolution means.

We have observed it on a macro scale by looking at the fossil record and modelling how changes have occurred in organisms. We have analyzed DNA from ancient remains and observed it's innate differences in reference to present day DNA of similar organisms.

We have fossil records of a dramatic and gradual change from apes to more human like beings.

Not sure why you are claiming this hasn't been observed.

Quote:

Like most people supporting evolutionary theory, you're completely ignorant about even the basics of what it actually purports, and simply have accepted the general idea based on faith.

Let's be serious: you are the one claiming that rocks turned into DNA here.

[Americas]

(06-06-2015 08:33 AM)scorpion Wrote:  

Ok, so how did the primordial soup emerge from a rock?

Where did the ocean and the "base chemicals" come from, and how did they miraculously assemble themselves into complex DNA?

We already know that the universe, and hence, this planet is made up of certain basic elements. Everywhere on planet Earth there are varying degrees of Nitrogen, Oxygen, Carbon, Iron, ect. in the crust of the earth and in the atmosphere.

In certain conditions these elements combine together and make bonds that in turn create new substances.

Certain atmospheres and the complex processes of geology create environments that are suitable for example that hydrogen and oxygen combine together in large quantities to create bodies of water. Certain elements such as nitrogen and carbon dioxide get absorbed by water and then create possible conditions for micro-organisms to be created and thrive. And in the right conditions, those micro-organisms can change and modify their behaviour and make-up to become into cell based organisms and there goes the needed spark to create more complex Eukaryotes and so forth.

To claim there is nothing scientific about that reasoning is incorrect. Doesn't mean it's correct, but we do have certain knowledge about these processes and have conducted experiments. That being said, it's incredibly hard with our current knowledge to understand what happened billions of years ago very well.

[storm]

Something being improbable does not mean it is impossible. This is quite a subtle point revolving around the nature of infinity, and a consequence of this understanding is that we should not discard something as impossible if it is unlikely.

As I understand your argument, scorpion, it is that it is extremely unlikely that we would have risen from rocks and therefore impossible. This is not logically consistent.

As for the finiteness of the past, remember that you can use the same arguments you make for an "origin" to make the claim that there is an "end". In this way, creation by God is essentially arguing destruction as well.

[scorpion]

(06-06-2015 08:54 AM)Americas Wrote:  

We already know that the universe, and hence, this planet is made up of certain basic elements. Everywhere on planet Earth there are varying degrees of Nitrogen, Oxygen, Carbon, Iron, ect. in the crust of the earth and in the atmosphere.

In certain conditions these elements combine together and make bonds that in turn create new substances.

Certain atmospheres and the complex processes of geology create environments that are suitable for example that hydrogen and oxygen combine together in large quantities to create bodies of water. Certain elements such as nitrogen and carbon dioxide get absorbed by water and then create possible conditions for micro-organisms to be created and thrive. And in the right conditions, those micro-organisms can change and modify their behaviour and make-up to become into cell based organisms and there goes the needed spark to create more complex Eukaryotes and so forth.

To claim there is nothing scientific about that reasoning is incorrect. Doesn't mean it's correct, but we do have certain knowledge about these processes and have conducted experiments. That being said, it's incredibly hard with our current knowledge to understand what happened billions of years ago very well.

But none of this has been observed. Evolution essentially says, "Well, given enough time, life just emerged from a random mixture of chemicals, which themselves emerged from rocks." There is no credible explanation for how the process got started, nor is there any mathematically sound basis for believing that hundreds of billions (perhaps trillions) of beneficial mutations could have occurred in tens of millions of separate species in the supposed 4.5 billion year lifespan of Earth. The odds of that happening are similar to you winning the lottery every week for the rest of your life.

[scorpion]

(06-06-2015 09:12 AM)storm Wrote:  

Something being improbable does not mean it is impossible. This is quite a subtle point revolving around the nature of infinity, and a consequence of this understanding is that we should not discard something as impossible if it is unlikely.

As I understand your argument, scorpion, it is that it is extremely unlikely that we would have risen from rocks and therefore impossible. This is not logically consistent.

As for the finiteness of the past, remember that you can use the same arguments you make for an "origin" to make the claim that there is an "end". In this way, creation by God is essentially arguing destruction as well.

First of all, evolutionists are not dealing with infinity. They are dealing with, according to their own theory, a 4.5 billion year old Earth, and approximately 1 billion year old life on Earth. So the evolutionist position is that sufficient beneficial mutations took place in 1 billion years to turn the most primitive chain of amino acids into human beings, and that prior to that, 3.5 billion years was sufficient time for non-living rock and water to turn into a living organism. Evolution does not rest on any concept of infinite time.

Secondly, yes, I believe that just as there was an origin, so there will be an end. But this is no different than most scientists, they simply believe in a different origin and a different end.

[Gringuito]

Scorpion,

I don't expect to convince you or change your mind but here are a few points about how a rock can turn into a person given enough time and energy. First you need to understand that the universe is really really really big. As people we aren't able to truly comprehend spaces that are billions of lightyears across or timespans that are billions of years.

You mentioned that creating life could only start during the existence of the Earth after it had cooled. Actually, it started much earlier in deep space or on other planets. We've been detecting the building blocks of DNA in interstellar space for quite some time. We've also seen these same molecules in comets. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stardu..._acid.html

DNA/RNA is a really interesting molecule which via straight chemistry can duplicate itself. Once it is randomly created anywhere in the universe it would be expected to duplicate and spread. It's also a very tough molecule that can survive trips in space http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia

So, given the fact the building blocks of life fill the universe, that DNA/RNA naturally replicate chemically, and that the universe is very large and very old, I would say it would be close to impossible for those molecules not to be very prevalent throughout the universe where the conditions are right (i.e. planets or moons with the right temperature).

The laws of the universe are so finely tuned to allow for life that scientists (as well as theologians) have wondered why. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe You can believe that God or a higher power designed the laws exactly to allow for life or believe in infinite universes with slightly different physical laws but our universe is the one with life. Take your pick.

You are correct that we haven't yet "created" life from a primordial soup. The highly unlikely events required are hard to reproduce in a short time. But I hope you would agree that if this happens even once, then life will quickly fill not just this planet but via meteor strikes will be transported to the other planets/moons of at least this solar system. It may well be that life on Earth actually started on Mars or even on one of the moons in the outer solar system or possible nearby solar systems. That's why we're looking at other places in this solar system for life.

Finally, if you do not believe that a finely tuned universe gave rise to life naturally, what do you think happened?

[JacksonRev]

(06-05-2015 08:59 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

(06-05-2015 07:11 PM)kleyau Wrote:  

I don't believe in evolution, I understand it.

No you don't. I'm sure you probably think you do, but you really have no idea. You just accept the idea on faith.

When I was 21, shortly after reading The Selfish Gene and changing my academic studies to Biology, I independently figured out the evolutionary principles behind cancer. I then proceeded to talk to my peers and professors, and none of them could coherently voice what I figured out. I actually did think I was going to be famous. But after some more research, I found out that another guy had already written about it some 20 years prior.

But I did learn an important point. Anybody that can't articulate why multi-celled organisms get cancer does not understand evolution. They don't know why that even if we cure every cancer we currently know about, we'll still get new types of cancer.

At an intuitive level, I don't get why people don't understand it. It just makes sense. I've taught hundreds of people Muay Thai, and when they finally get the techniques down after continuous adjustments to their form, I see the light bulb go off in their heads. This happens oh so rarely with evolution.

But, when I step back, and view it from an evolutionary perspective, instead of a self-referential one, it makes perfect sense. Brain size has decreased roughly 10% since we went from primitive savages into civilized humans. Which means society doesn't breed for intelligence, it predominately selects for extended breeding stocks to be used for labor and cannon fodder.

Consider, over 22% of Union soldiers died as a result of the Civil War. Only 0.3% of Americans sent to Iraq during OIF died.

There was no need for large numbers of intelligent people throughout history, since the primary ways we affected the world were through the shear numbers of people. The technology didn't exist for large numbers of intelligent people to project their ideas upon the world.

Now it does. Look at job boards. Network administrators, computer programmers, geographic information specialists; these are the people needed today. Much of the world is just in service to them. Go to most bars or sit down restaurants. Who are the customers? Who are the service personnel?

The service personnel are who were selected for prior to the information revolution. This is why pay remains so high for technical and math oriented people. Being able to clearly see the world was not a common trait throughout history, because then people wouldn't happily serve their masters.

[scorpion]

(06-06-2015 09:27 AM)Gringuito Wrote:  

Scorpion,

I don't expect to convince you or change your mind but here are a few points about how a rock can turn into a person given enough time and energy. First you need to understand that the universe is really really really big. As people we aren't able to truly comprehend spaces that are billions of lightyears across or timespans that are billions of years.

You mentioned that creating life could only start during the existence of the Earth after it had cooled. Actually, it started much earlier in deep space or on other planets. We've been detecting the building blocks of DNA in interstellar space for quite some time. We've also seen these same molecules in comets. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stardu..._acid.html

DNA/RNA is a really interesting molecule which via straight chemistry can duplicate itself. Once it is randomly created anywhere in the universe it would be expected to duplicate and spread. It's also a very tough molecule that can survive trips in space http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia

So, given the fact the building blocks of life fill the universe, that DNA/RNA naturally replicate chemically, and that the universe is very large and very old, I would say it would be close to impossible for those molecules not to be very prevalent throughout the universe where the conditions are right (i.e. planets or moons with the right temperature).

The laws of the universe are so finely tuned to allow for life that scientists (as well as theologians) have wondered why. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe You can believe that God or a higher power designed the laws exactly to allow for life or believe in infinite universes with slightly different physical laws but our universe is the one with life. Take your pick.

You are correct that we haven't yet "created" life from a primordial soup. The highly unlikely events required are hard to reproduce in a short time. But I hope you would agree that if this happens even once, then life will quickly fill not just this planet but via meteor strikes will be transported to the other planets/moons of at least this solar system. It may well be that life on Earth actually started on Mars or even on one of the moons in the outer solar system or possible nearby solar systems. That's why we're looking at other places in this solar system for life.

Finally, if you do not believe that a finely tuned universe gave rise to life naturally, what do you think happened?

Good post. You've made the case about as well as it could be made, however, do you not see how everything you've just said can only be accepted on faith? You're literally suggesting that RNA/DNA are piggybacking around the universe on comets and spontaneously evolving into life. I'm sorry, is that not a bit sci-fi to you? Given the infinite complexity we observe in nature, is that really more believable than the idea that a creator lies behind everything? Occam's Razor applies here. The mental hoops one must jump through to explain the origins of life in an evolutionary universe that started with an explosion strain all reason.

As for what I believe: the universe was clearly created by some force/being that exists outside of observable time and space (the physical bounds of reality). This is what we call "God". I can offer no irrefutable proof that the Christian God is this creator, however, I think that any intelligent person, after objectively looking at the evidence, will be convinced that the probability that the universe was created is much higher than that it spontaneously evolved out of an explosion by pure chance.

[Phoenix]

Scorpion, can you describe a proof scenario whereby you would no longer believe the world was created by a deity?

[Gringuito]

Phoenix, I don't think there is a proof scenario for either of the cases of multiple infinite universes with different physical properties (ours being one of the few that can sustain life) or a higher power creating/guiding our universe. Isn't that for each person to decide for themselves?

[scorpion]

(06-06-2015 09:56 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

Scorpion, can you describe a proof scenario whereby you would no longer believe the world was created by a deity?

No, I really can't. And grappling with this question (and similar questions) is what turned me away from atheism to begin with. I don't believe there is any evidence proving that the universe "created itself" that would be sufficient to convince me that a big bang/evolution were more probable origins than creation. There doesn't seem to be any way to prove it either way, which is why I say it ultimately comes down to a question of faith. You either have faith that the universe was created, or you have faith that it randomly emerged for no clear reason. Neither can be proved - but the former strikes me as much more probable than the latter.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

I see no problem with life being created out of minerals and chemical reactions. Maybe we will find that there is more to it and some planets were colonized, because an Alien intergalactic race had a picnic there and left some of their DNA and the rest of their sandwich on a planet like Earth.

Evolution does not discount a higher force permeating and actually guiding the evolutionary development. I have already mentioned the fact that mathematicians question the randomness of evolutionary development. What if there is a force which helps life to develop along the lines which are beneficial?

Personally I am not discounting anything - a highly advanced civilization may actually prove all the points - may even prove a strange guiding force and even measure it. Science is in my opinion in no conflict with open philosophy and religion. OK - some dogmas may have to be let go by some religions, but that is to be expected since religions are not created by God, but by humans - and even the people who follow the founders change it quite a bit afterwards.