The Logical Pathway From "Evolution is wrong" to "Therefore God"

[crjmurray]

there is no "understanding" about how life got here.
from koonins "logic of chance":
The origin of life is one of the hardest problems in all of science, but it is also one of the most important. Origin-of-live research has evolved into a lively, interdisciplinary field, but other scientists often view it with skepticism and even derision. This attitude is understandable and, in a sense, perhaps justified, given the “dirty” rarely mentioned secret: Despite many interesting results to its credit, when judged by the straightforward criterion of reaching (or even approaching) the ultimate goal, the origin of life field is a failure – we still do not have even a plausible coherent model, let alone a validated scenario, for the emergence of life on Earth. Certainly, this is due not to a lack of experimental and theoretical effort, but to the extraordinary intrinsic difficulty and complexity of the problem. A succession of exceedingly unlikely steps is essential for the origin of life, from the synthesis and accumulation of nucleotides to the origin of translation; through the multiplication of probabilities, these make the final outcome seem almost like a miracle.
-Eugene V. Koonin, molecular biologist, The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution (Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press, 2011), 391

Abiogenisis is a different field from evolution. Koonin does not deny common descent. So this is a pointless post.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Abiogenisis is a different field from evolution. Koonin does not deny common descent. So this is a pointless post.

whois never said that Koonin denied common descent.

 

[crjmurray]

whois never said that Koonin denied common descent.

He has in the past. whois seems to be making the point that if we can't explain how life arose then we can't explain how it evolved. That's ridiculous. So Koonin can make all the comments on abiogenisis he wants. It makes no difference to the TOE.

 

[Zosimus]

We're specifically talking about cellular life. I don't believe anyone has ever seriously claimed that God is composed of protoplasm.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/04/the-king-follett-sermon?lang=eng

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another.

--Joseph Smith, Jr.
Founder of the Mormon Religion.
--------------
Accordingly I conclude that most Mormons would say that their religion teaches that God has a physical body composed of exalted cellular life.

 

[Oncedeceived]

He has in the past. whois seems to be making the point that if we can't explain how life arose then we can't explain how it evolved. That's ridiculous. So Koonin can make all the comments on abiogenisis he wants. It makes no difference to the TOE.

I see. You can't say it makes no difference to TOE. The study of abiogenesis is a separate study but life is needed before it can evolve.

 

[crjmurray]

I see. You can't say it makes no difference to TOE. The study of abiogenesis is a separate study but life is needed before it can evolve.

And we have life. We don't need to know the process of how it originally came about to understand how it changes. But you already know that.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And we have life. We don't need to know the process of how it originally came about to understand how it changes. But you already know that.

I agree, which is not what I said. We need life before it can evolve and it happened. WE don't "need" to know how to understand evolution but how is important.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree, which is not what I said. We need life before it can evolve and it happened. WE don't "need" to know how to understand evolution but how is important.

And abiogenesis is an area of active research. The work of new science is very often based upon the work of old science.

The problem of abiogenesis looks like it is solvable. I wonder where the creationists will most the goalposts to if and when abiogenesis is solved.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And abiogenesis is an area of active research. The work of new science is very often based upon the work of old science.

The problem of abiogenesis looks like it is solvable. I wonder where the creationists will most the goalposts to if and when abiogenesis is solved.

Why? Science for me is an explanation of how God did it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why? Science for me is an explanation of how God did it.

Then you accept that humans evolved from a common ancestor that is shared with everything from apes to birds to fish?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then you accept that humans evolved from a common ancestor that is shared with everything from apes to birds to fish?

There is evidence that supports that conclusion.

 

[Loudmouth]

There is evidence that supports that conclusion.

Do you accept that evidence and the conclusion? Or do you reject the science?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Do you accept that evidence and the conclusion? Or do you reject the science?

I think the findings in the scientific methodology are accurate. I don't know if I am convinced of the conclusions.

 

[JasonClark]

"things becoming alive" flies in the face of everything rational.

Unless of course you attach the word God to "things becoming alive" it then suddenly becomes completely rational.

 

[Loudmouth]

I think the findings in the scientific methodology are accurate. I don't know if I am convinced of the conclusions.

Then you reject the science.

 

[whois]

whois never said that Koonin denied common descent.

i believe HGT does a pretty fair job at smashing common descent in the darwinian sense.
there simply cannot be that kind of thing.
a tree of life drawn up at the species level does not correlate with one drawn up at the genetic level.
this correlates well with what maynard says about these transitions being major ones.

 

[Armoured]

i believe HGT does a pretty fair job at smashing common descent in the darwinian sense.
there simply cannot be that kind of thing.
a tree of life drawn up at the species level does not correlate with one drawn up at the genetic level.
this correlates well with what maynard says about these transitions being major ones.

Can you give an example of such a genetic mismatch?

 

[The Cadet]

i believe HGT does a pretty fair job at smashing common descent in the darwinian sense.
there simply cannot be that kind of thing.
a tree of life drawn up at the species level does not correlate with one drawn up at the genetic level.

Actually, it does, right up until you reach the base, where the term "species" tends to fall apart anyways. Genetics almost perfectly recapitulates morphology. Horizontal gene transfer has updated the model, but this does nothing to negate the idea of a handful of individual common ancestors. It has next to no effect on, say, how we classify a human or a banana. In fact, thanks to ERVs, it offers us some of the strongest evidence of common descent.

 

[Loudmouth]

i believe HGT does a pretty fair job at smashing common descent in the darwinian sense.

Why would small amounts of DNA produced by HGT do away with the preponderance of DNA inherited from a common ancestor?

a tree of life drawn up at the species level does not correlate with one drawn up at the genetic level.

Really? Here is the DNA tree for humans and other ape species.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v469/n7331/full/nature09687.html

That is exactly the tree we should see from common descent.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then you reject the science.

Who do you think you are? Scientists find elements and conclusions in Science many times unconvincing. I celebrate what Science brings to the world; the advancements, the understandings we can find in the world. You have no reason nor do you have the authority to tell me I reject Science.