Many scientists think they have very good clues but I'm just not convinced, at least not yet.
What is the case against Evolution?
- Thread starter Seattle
- Start date
Many scientists think they have very good clues but I'm just not convinced, at least not yet.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
As opposed to what? The old age stuff like Genesis?
Well, then you may want to do some more research. I suggest Robert Hazen to get you started in the science of mineralogy and the formation of molecular compounds and symbiotic action and reactions.
It might interests you that the human biome consists of 10% human cells and 80% bacterial cells. Without symbiotic cooperation from bacteria, you wouldn't be here at all, regardless of god's handiwork with a handfull of clay..
Try to read up on "Endosymbiosis" and you'll get an idea of the potential inherent in elementary chemistry.
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Evolution/Endosymbiosis.htm
Last edited:
You just misunderstand the videos you are watching.
Claiming that the video you mentioned connects mineralogy with symbiotic life is a good reason for Hagen to sue you for making him appear a pseudoscientist which lacks the basic rigour to be a professional scientist.
What about evolution? do you question evolution as well?
This is not a legit counter argument.
Its like if person A makes the claim that a rock slowly self organizes and transforms into a snake after million years and a person B says: no way!! I dispute that.
And then person A goes: As opposed to what? Genesis? god made the snakes the 4th day? This can't be true so my version must be the right one.
Fortunately, convincing you of such things is not important.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
No, that just means my version is the more realistic one, especially if it is based on evidence. And the evolutionary hypothesis is based on overwhelming evidence.
The point is that creationists insist that 6 day creation is true and I object to that. It's physically impossible and therefore the biblical hypothesis must be based on some unknowable supernatural interference......
Whatever it is, it's not based on science but on superstition,.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Have you watched the lecture? Seriously? If not, do so now. The knowledge you'll glean is worth the price of some 20 minutes of your life.
Robert Hazen (with a z) specifically mentions that in his opinion life is almost inevitable given the right environment. and specifically mentions that he believes life will be found on other planets.
https://hazen.carnegiescience.edu/
I'll put him up against Behe any day of the week.
Last edited:
More appropriately, up against James Tour, or Edward Peltzer. Either one would shred your hero to pierces in a real debate.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
My scientist can beat up your scientist.
What is this? The school playground?
What is this? The school playground?
There's quite a bit more to that one than handwaving - iirc they even have a mechanism and sequence for the genetic change and selection.
As with any other basic and widely applicable theory.
That's not an argument against the basic theory itself, or any of its myriad applications both biological and other.
Nothing in Darwinian theory even hints at any necessity for intermediate steps to be driven by the same selective pressure that governed the final step and final structure (so far). Quite otherwise. Darwin's central argument from evidence rested on the ability of selection to exapt existing structures for new and different purposes.
Got anything written yet? Transcript? They seem to be frauds, from the excerpts I've seen.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I think that many/most real scientists can accept that. They might not agree with "don't have a clue" and would point to their favored hypotheses, but when pressed they would admit that they don't really know what happened and are still producing guesses that they hope will be confirmed somehow, someday.
But this is Sciforums, populated by laypeople who are science-enthusiasts. (Nothing wrong with that.)
Unfortunately, many of the participants here perceive "science" (idealized as the source of progress, identified with reason itself) to be in a cage-match battle-to-the-death with "religion" (identified with an aggressive sort of fundamentalist Christianity). So any acknowledgement that science doesn't have all the answers on a controverted topic like the origin of life, is feared as a sign of weakness that might give their opponents an opening to launch a death-thrust and thus return the world to the "dark ages".
Which leads to overreach and to claims that science can explain much more than it really can.
Yes, I entirely agree. They may have the intelligence, but evidence of what happened back on the very early Earth (or wherever life originated) is sorely lacking. Nor as you suggest, can we be certain that our current knowledge of chemistry and biology is up to the task. All we can do is try.
Hypotheses at least. Based on life as we see it today, on chemistry as it's presently known, and on our very imperfect knowledge about conditions on the early Earth.
I think that most of the more thoughtful (and less ideological) workers in fundamental biology will be honest enough to admit that they don't really know the final answer. It's something that biologists all love to speculate about though.
Last edited:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/chemistry-plus-biology-abiogenesis.162075/page-18#post-3587482
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/chemistry-plus-biology-abiogenesis.162075/page-20#post-3587534
Not interested in arguing with a professional arguer who argues for arguing's sake. Schmelzer been too quiet of late over in the never ending political slug-fest subs?
What's this? Playing school yard prefect?My scientist can beat up your scientist.
What is this? The school playground?
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Sometimes you have to.
I probably should have resisted pointing out Write4U's match-up was ill-matched, a critic of certain neo-Darwinian macro-evolutionary 'theories' vs a proponent of abiogensis 'theories'.
Anyway, it's too easy to then have someone come in and play cop for a cheap score. But clearly it did work.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Duly noted......!
Have you watched the Hazen lecture yet?
Cheap scores are your specialty, no?
I told you way back in that other thread. Yes. And not impressed. Lot's of hand waving.
No.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Sometimes the science does indeed explain the mathematical logic of a probabilistic event without overreaching. The Higgs experiment proved that.
Ernest Schoffeniels proposes that when "sufficient" raw materials are present it becomes a probabilistic "necessity" for a specific action to occur. This is founded on the Law of "Necessity and Sufficiency".
http://www.eoht.info/page/Ernest Schoffeniels
Example: When sufficient hydrogen and oxygen molecules are mixed it becomes a chemical necessity that H2O ( water) is a deterministic result. The inherent potential for symbiotic chemistry in both elements create an Implicate necessity for the chemistry to interact as it must.
Thus, when taking earth as an environment with sufficient raw materials for life to emerge, then it follows that any planet which has a similarly rich chemistry and dynamical conditions, should have a reasonable probability for producing life, if only by panspermia (which would prove the theory).
The conditions of the early earth were such that it was necessary for life to emerge.
Clearly the Potential for the emergence of life was there at some point.......
p.s. Biological evolution cannot be denied, it produced life by the chemical sufficiency for the necessity of Abiogenesis.
Evolution cannot be denied, by definition it was a universal (mathematical) function from the dynamical beginning.
Last edited:
But those on the other side
yes yous on the other side come on bring it on
know - lump of massaged dirt / mud / clay
Did I get that right? That is my very brief version. Feel free to flesh out any details I may have missed
Just in posting fraud videos from bullshit artists making bank on the ignorance of the American fundie.
Or do you have a transcript, something written down?
Saves you retyping - well done.
But of course it's the same bs anyway:
You mean competing hypotheses. In the science world, theory and hypothesis are not interchangeable terms.
Darwinian evolution is the theoretical basis of almost all the hypotheses held by a large number of scientists, and most of the fringe ones as well. Wiki did not count adherents for you, so you didn't bother with that aspect of the claim - despite its centrality.
Last edited: