Many books on analytical philosophy or something on misunderstandings of evolutionary theory.
Statistical evidence of god
- Thread starter lightgigantic
- Start date
Many books on analytical philosophy or something on misunderstandings of evolutionary theory.
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
I mean internet links...lets hear the Dawkins dissection of the issue for example.
The simplest and probably earliest organic organism, having some form of genetic material that replicates itself is composed of millions of molecules in complex arrangement.
I'd like to hear the evolutionary explanation of how this suddenly appears by random chance, even in the context of astronomical time periods.
I dont know of internet links but I'm sure there must be many. The eye is often used by doorlnockers an an example of complexity that cannot arise by chance. The mistake is to assume that the eye came into existence as we know it today.
Imagine an organism having a single cell that gave it the ability to distinguish between light and dark. Such a cell would confer an advantage and would be likely to increase in the gene pool. More of such cells would develop into a simple eye which could continue to increase in complexity.
This is something that cannot be adequately covered on a forum in a religious subsection. For now I will provide a link that might help you understand a few concepts commonly misunderstood by creationists/idists and the like.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13620?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=dn13620
Regards,
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
Thats an excellent site Snake, and I have no problem understanding most of the points, however the article which comes closest (no bullseye here) to addressing my question actually states that the answer is unknown:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel...cterial-flagellum-is-irreducibly-complex.html
"More generally, the fact that today's biologists cannot provide a definitive account of how every single structure or organism evolved proves nothing about design versus evolution. Biology is still in its infancy, and even when our understanding of life and its history is far more complete, our ability to reconstruct what happened billions of years ago will still be limited."
This is also my own view...agnosis.
A far more truthful and honest approach, as opposed to assuming random chance or the involvement of divine intervention.
Last edited:
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
Yes I have no problem with the complexity of the eye, as it could have evolved from simpler light sensitive cells.
However the gulf between simple and complex eyes is nothing compared to the gulf between zero organization and the organization inherent in the simplest virus or bacteria, comprised of millions of molecular parts, all working in harmony.
actually I would argue that you are constantly striving to find reasons not to practice ...
technically speaking, you could lick an invisible one .... but not a non-existent one
Every year 20,000 new insects are found and named, can you honestly expect any different? That evolution happens is not contested except for those with a personal, and highly emotional, agenda. Having said that, it would be simple foolishness to think that, given the statement you quoted, how every single organism evolved can be answered here and now. Such inability is not an argument to design for anyone that would try to contend such a thing, (this was largely the point of that section).
I will see how this discussion progresses and then add data where needed but for now it needs to be stated clearly that evolution happens - there is however still lots to uncover about that fact.
Regards,
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
I wouldnt contest that evolution happens, in fact I believe its an observable phenomena on small scales.
But my question isnt about evolution. Its about appearance.
The word evolution refers to changes in genetic material replicated by organisms over multiple generations, as determined by mutation and natural selection
My question is really about the 'appearance' of the earliest organisms themselves.
Ive been using the term 'simplest organism'...but really, there are no simple life forms. The simplest ones are about as simple as a skyscraper.
And to me, it seems equally absurd to assume they appeared by random chance, than by the hand of a certain Hebrew sky deity.
firstly, abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. evolution describes what happens after you have a self replicating... thing (for lack of a better word). I applaud carcano for making that differentiation.
secondly, the amino acids and other large molecules that make up the "simplest" forms of life are naturally occurring.
sorry I don't have too many sources, I don't have any off-hand. your googling is as good as mine =]
you should watch this though:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKZ-GjSaqgo
its not totally on-topic, but it gives you an idea of how easy it is to make life.
secondly, the amino acids and other large molecules that make up the "simplest" forms of life are naturally occurring.
sorry I don't have too many sources, I don't have any off-hand. your googling is as good as mine =]
you should watch this though:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKZ-GjSaqgo
its not totally on-topic, but it gives you an idea of how easy it is to make life.
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
I'll study that talk more carefully tomorrow...but I dont think "easy" is a word that belongs here.
Most of his presentation is about how insanely difficult it is to create the simplest possible genome...even with years of work, computers and advanced machines.
It doesn't. The first replicator, the ancestor of DNA and the Last Universal Common Ancestor, must have been fairly simple. Only just complex enough to reproduce itself in a very favourable environment. Perhaps a single RNA molecule of a couple hundred nucleotides? Maybe even a small peptide of a couple dozen amino acids?
Here are some links about abiogenesis for you:
Wikipedia - Abiogenesis
Wikipedia - RNA world hypothesis
Wikipedia - Iron-Sulfur world hypothesis
TalkOrigins.org - Abiogenesis FAQs
I recommend exploring the links on the TalkOrigins page.
Yes ... at some point not practising stops being about fear, insecurity, lack of idea what to do,
and instead becomes an active avoidance of practice.
In a world devoid of competition and predation, the effects of replicators such as clays and crystals would be spectacular and planetwide.pete said:
And any multistage, long-term, wide-ranging, inorganic replication cycles would be unopposed by the modern onslaught of bacterial and fungal degradations.
Righty, that's abiogenesis. Seems Cato and Pete have addressed that issue so I'll leave it there.
This site puts it simply: http://groups.msn.com/AtheistVSGod/abiogenesis.msnw
But I would ask in what manner you use the term 'simple'. Simple to what? We could say that the Grand Canyon is not 'simple', it is indeed quite remarkable from our perspective, but is that an argument to design?
Regards,
actually I would argue that you are constantly striving to find reasons not to practice ...
technically speaking, you could lick an invisible one .... but not a non-existent one
You are a hopeless case. I have already told you that an invisible stamp cannot exist because it would lack the properties of a proper stamp. It has nothing to do with speaking tehnically speaking or otherwise. So why continue to refer to it.
What practice exactly am I supposed to be avoiding ? Can you not understand that I have no desire to practise what I regard as mumbo-jumbo?
I actively avoid all sorts of things, not just religious practices. You seem unable to understand that not everyone has your needs.
Then why aren't you true to your own classification of what he is?
Why do you keep engaging him?
In case his silly arguments may confuse other, particularly younger, people in the way that Creationist sites do.