views on evolution

[Aqueous Id]

Originally Posted by spidergoat
There was a retraction from the source, which is the only thing that matters. Doesn't it matter to you that you base your criticism of evolution on a misquote?

Originally Posted by Origin
Of course not! He doesn't want evolution to be true (for whatever reason) so he has to grasp at something, regardless if it is false or not. He thinks facts, data and observations are simply annoying details that get in the way of what he wants to believe.

leopold claims Science published no retraction.

Here is a link to the article, with the retraction inserted. It states that it is reprinted with the permission of Science:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070928082833/http://dim.com/~jambo/evolution/lewin.html

 

[origin]

leopold claims Science published no retraction.

Here is a link to the article, with the retraction inserted. It states that it is reprinted with the permission of Science:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070928082833/http://dim.com/~jambo/evolution/lewin.html

Let me check my crystal ball.... I see leopold ignoring this and continuing with repeat that there are no take backs.

 

[leopold]

leopold claims Science published no retraction.

Here is a link to the article, with the retraction inserted. It states that it is reprinted with the permission of Science:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070928082833/http://dim.com/~jambo/evolution/lewin.html

actually it said the CONFERENCE was reprinted with permission.

this piece was sourced from arrowsmiths personal website.

 

[Robittybob1]

These are interesting facts but don't really deny evolution. They seem more issues with abiogenesis. Maybe that is the final hurdle for the Evolutionists to explain. They must explain the evolution of abiogenesis. This stage is as important as the final part.
For it would be silly to have to rely on God's creation to explain the first cell types that we all agree will evolve into the various species.

 

[billvon]

. . .They seem more issues with abiogenesis. Maybe that is the final hurdle for the Evolutionists to explain. They must explain the evolution of abiogenesis. This stage is as important as the final part.

Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution (other than needing to precede it.) Evolution has no meaning until life exists - hence it cannot explain anything having to do with the transition from nonlife to life.

However, once life exists, it then starts to shape the path that life takes.

 

[Robittybob1]

Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution (other than needing to precede it.) Evolution has no meaning until life exists - hence it cannot explain anything having to do with the transition from nonlife to life.

However, once life exists, it then starts to shape the path that life takes.

That's sort of what i was getting at. There needed to be a way of saying abiogenesis can happen without Divine intervention. It would seem ironic to say evolution is the way it happened without showing how the first life started without the need for God's Hand being involved.

I see evolution working so don't think I don't believe in the power of evolution. I do believe abiogenesis happened naturally too, but not here on Earth.

 

[leopold]

i'm sure you are familiar with the scientific law of biogenesis.

There needed to be a way of saying abiogenesis can happen without Divine intervention.

so without further ado the above mentioned law was scraped.
it sure wasn't because of any evidence against it.

 

[Robittybob1]

i'm sure you are familiar with the scientific law of biogenesis.

Law of Biogenesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis#Law_of_Biogenesis
The "Law of Biogenesis," attributed to Louis Pasteur, states that organisms such as mice, flies and bacteria do not spontaneously appear on food, a long-standing belief known as "spontaneous generation."[5][6] Pasteur stated: "La génération spontanée est une chimère" ("Spontaneous generation is a dream"). It should be noted that spontaneous generation is not the same as the scientific concept of abiogenesis, which proposes the gradual evolution of increasingly complex replicators to the point where the result meets the criteria to be considered life.
Despite its popular name the "Law of biogenesis" does not actually have the status of a scientific law such as the Laws of Thermodynamics. However creationists often represent it as such in order to attack the theory of evolution.

so without further ado the above mentioned law was scraped.
it sure wasn't because of any evidence against it.

Pasteur can't just stop Abiogenesis simply declaring a law against it.

 

[leopold]

actually the scientific law of biogenesis says:
"life comes from life and that of its own kind"

this has NEVER been disproved, not one single time.

but, let's not let facts deter you.

 

[Robittybob1]

actually the scientific law of biogenesis says:
"life comes from life and that of its own kind"

this has NEVER been disproved, not one single time.

but, let's not let facts deter you.

The facts are:
1. We have an Earth with life on.
2. There was a time when there was no life on it

Implies that life does not only come from life for the first life had no living thing preceding it.

 

[billvon]

actually the scientific law of biogenesis says:
"life comes from life and that of its own kind"

this has NEVER been disproved, not one single time.

Actually we've created self replicating life from lifeless chemistry. (Google Scripps RNA.)

 

[billvon]

There needed to be a way of saying abiogenesis can happen without Divine intervention.

There are several ways that we have demonstrated it can happen. Modern research is attempting to determine which one of those ways actually occurred.

 

[Robittybob1]

Actually we've created self replicating life from lifeless chemistry. (Google Scripps RNA.)

Its a start - but still a long way to go.

Scripps scientists develop first examples of RNA that replicates itself indefinitely
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-01/sri-ssd010909.php

 

[Aqueous Id]

actually the scientific law of biogenesis says:
"life comes from life and that of its own kind"

this has NEVER been disproved, not one single time.

but, let's not let facts deter you.

In other words, creatures such as those he studied - mice, bugs, etc. - can not appear fully formed out of the muck.

What deterrent remains now?

Or should we purge from the books our current science:

 

[leopold]

the arguement i presented wasn't about aboigenesis but a quote made by dr. ayala.
but . .

What deterrent remains now?[

the demonstration that it actually happened that way, that's what.

explaining something with words or pictures is not proof in this regard.

edit:

In other words, creatures such as those he studied - mice, bugs, etc. - can not appear fully formed out of the muck.

he?
you mean pasteur?
the law in question wasn't formulated by one man.
countless thousands of scientists have confirmed it by countless thousands of experiments.
an observation does not become a scientific law for shits and giggles.

they apparently fall from grace that way though, and in regards to evolution.

 

[Robittybob1]

In other words, creatures such as those he studied - mice, bugs, etc. - can not appear fully formed out of the muck.

What deterrent remains now?

Or should we purge from the books our current science:

The Universe is much older than the Earth. From that picture you get the idea that the whole abiogenesis occurred on the Earth.
Much more time is available if there is the possibility of molecules crossing the distances of space.
I favour the idea of an incubator planet.

 

[wellwisher]

actually the scientific law of biogenesis says:
"life comes from life and that of its own kind"
this has NEVER been disproved, not one single time.
but, let's not let facts deter you.

Originally the earth was too hot to support any life. So, in the beginning, there was no life on earth. Life needed to start without life. It needed to start with only chemicals like methane, ammonia, water, carbon dioxide, etc.

I understand the quote is talking about after life, after life is established, no new life appears but all subsequent life evolves from the first life. But that may not be true either, since life may have evolved from chemicals in more than one isolated pockets. Therefore, even after the first life appears, another pocket might start to form life #2. We can't prove this either way.

What we do know is the state of the art can't duplicate either. There needs to be an advancement to make this possible.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Why does abiogenesis always come up, it has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is a class of events, abiogenesis may have been just one event ever, the exact nature of which may be impossible to know without a time machine. Life could have been created by a sky wizard and then evolved. The problem is you can't suppose that evolution did not happen without also having to assume that a sky wizard made it appear that things evolve, thus making it a malevolent and trickster deity.

 

[wellwisher]

Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution (other than needing to precede it.) Evolution has no meaning until life exists - hence it cannot explain anything having to do with the transition from nonlife to life.

However, once life exists, it then starts to shape the path that life takes

So, evolution needs to be discussed out of the context of the origin or zero point on the curve of life? It is like plotting a graph and not having to use the zero point. One is supposed to ignore potential subjective bias in the plotting that allows us to move the curve anywhere we wish since zero is optional?

Let me show you potential problems with an analogy. Say we conceive a human. This is analogous to the zero point of abiogenesis. With evolution we will start the theory at age 5. All that happens from 0-5 has nothing to do with what comes next? The problem I see, is there may be factors from 0-4 that shape how 5 works, which are already in place, which will not taken into account.

For example, at age 2 he was traumatized. We don't know this starting at 5, since the theory is not concerned with that. Yet, common sense says this will matter in we wish logical explanations for apparent anomalies. But if empirical is good enough, there is enough creative liberty in random to fudge over this and pretend there is not logic since it is life?

I work under the assumption the clock of life starts at time zero and you cannot begin a billion years later. To do this, you need variables that would work at time zero as well as now.

Could replication occur out of water? If not why?

 

[billvon]

So, evolution needs to be discussed out of the context of the origin or zero point on the curve of life? It is like plotting a graph and not having to use the zero point.

Can there be a valid theory of gravity if the theory does not explain how the universe began? Of course. It can be 100% valid and explain the functioning of gravity - even if it does not explain how gravity came to be.

Let me show you potential problems with an analogy. Say we conceive a human. This is analogous to the zero point of abiogenesis. With evolution we will start the theory at age 5. All that happens from 0-5 has nothing to do with what comes next? The problem I see, is there may be factors from 0-4 that shape how 5 works, which are already in place, which will not taken into account.

Right. Educators (anyone really) has to understand what happened from age 0 to 5. But (and this is the important part) they don't have to be a geneticist; they don't have to understand how that child developed from a sperm and an egg before birth.

That's because education theory does not need to explain fetal development. Fetal development is a necessary PRECURSOR to education (can't educate a child if there's no child!) but it does not need to explain it.