The Demise of Evolution

[OldWiseGuy]

We'll select honest people. Do you have a test we could use to select them?

I would seek the advice of professional pollsters for that.
Can polls be trusted? Yes, if designed well

Actually the poll question doesn't necessarily have to rely on the honesty of those polled. For example the question could be, "Generally speaking, is 'honesty the best policy', and why?"

 

[ZNP]

Nobody thinks that life formed randomly since chemistry itself isn't random.

The process by which mutations occur in the DNA is thought to be random.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The process by which mutations occur in the DNA is thought to be random.

So? That does not help your claim.

 

[Speedwell]

The process by which mutations occur in the DNA is thought to be random.

And the process by which favorable mutations are selected is not. But weren't we were talking about abiogenesis?

 

[ZNP]

That is not the case. It was fairly well accepted even before they found the crater. The crater was merely the last bit of evidence needed.

But new ideas are often resisted by older scientists. They are only human after all. But progress is continually made because younger scientists are more apt to embrace new ideas. For example younger scientists are more behind accepting cladistics when it comes to classifying life.

The Alvarez Hypothesis was formally accepted in 2010, it was proposed in 1980 with sufficient evidence to accept it then. During the intervening 30 years there was a great controversy (Read the Great Dinosaur Controversy) and scientists on both sides of the issue supported their arguments with "evidence" and discounted the others evidence.

 

[ZNP]

And the process by which favorable mutations are selected is not. But weren't we were talking about abiogenesis?

No, my post which you responded to, was concerning evolution, based on the first post. I am new to this thread.

 

[ZNP]

So? That does not help your claim.

what claim is that?

 

[ZNP]

"However, there are some intriguing problems in the fossil record, most notably "lazarus taxa" which are creatures that we presume took millions of years to evolve, became extinct in the Permian extinction and then miraculously reappear in the fossil record a few million years later. "

The absence of fossils never meant that the above didn't exist. Historically, people thought dinosaurs went extinct too. But as fossils are continually dug up, those numbers of allegedly extinct animals continued to dwindle, not necessarily because of a miraculous re-creation of life, but because they never went extinct to begin with.

There is a lot we are learning, the human genome will certainly help, but we are discovering that most genes in the genome are not active, they have been shut off. Why? What purpose do they serve? The fact that we haven't figured it out means it is more complicated and probably more amazing than we currently realize.

 

[ZNP]

I am sorry but there is evidence for abiogenesis. You simply do not understand the concept since you listed some of the evidence. Nor is there a theory of abiogenesis. You contradict yourself by using that term. A theory is a concept that has gone far past merely having evidence. It by definition has to be both well supported and well accepted.

I am confused by your response. You say "nor is there a theory of abiogenesis" and then say that a theory is well supported and well accepted. What is it, is there a theory of abiogenesis or not? It is simple enough to google "theory of abiogenesis" and yes, in the scientific community it would be referred to as a theory, so I am confused by your post.

 

[ZNP]

I am confused by your response. You say "nor is there a theory of abiogenesis" and then say that a theory is well supported and well accepted. What is it, is there a theory of abiogenesis or not? It is simple enough to google "theory of abiogenesis" and yes, in the scientific community it would be referred to as a theory, so I am confused by your post.

As far as my claim goes, creation says that God made something out of nothing. Abiogenesis never makes that claim, it never claims to have a theory on how you could make life out of nothing. My claim is that evolution does not claim to explain how the universe or man came to be from nothing.

 

[Ophiolite]

But new ideas are often resisted by older scientists. They are only human after all. But progress is continually made because younger scientists are more apt to embrace new ideas.

While there may be some truth in this notion, though I haven't encountered a study supporting it, it seems inapplicable in the case of the KT extinction event by asteroid impact. This was the joint effort of Luis Alvarez and his son. Luis was old enough to have played a role in the Los Alamos project, working under Oppenheimer, thirty plus years earlier.

 

[ZNP]

While there may be some truth in this notion, though I haven't encountered a study supporting it, it seems inapplicable in the case of the KT extinction event by asteroid impact. This was the joint effort of Luis Alvarez and his son. Luis was old enough to have played a role in the Los Alamos project, working under Oppenheimer, thirty plus years earlier.

Read "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Kuhn. All scientific revolutions involve a paradigm shift.

 

[Job 33:6]

There is a lot we are learning, the human genome will certainly help, but we are discovering that most genes in the genome are not active, they have been shut off. Why? What purpose do they serve? The fact that we haven't figured it out means it is more complicated and probably more amazing than we currently realize.

My response was on the fossil succession not the human genome.

 

[ZNP]

"However, there are some intriguing problems in the fossil record, most notably "lazarus taxa" which are creatures that we presume took millions of years to evolve, became extinct in the Permian extinction and then miraculously reappear in the fossil record a few million years later. "

The absence of fossils never meant that the above didn't exist. Historically, people thought dinosaurs went extinct too. But as fossils are continually dug up, those numbers of allegedly extinct animals continued to dwindle, not necessarily because of a miraculous re-creation of life, but because they never went extinct to begin with.

So your explanation for lazarus taxa are that they never went extinct in the first place? The old "nothing to see here" explanation for when we have a problem. You realize that the Permian extinction was extreme. They estimate 95% of all species went extinct. Their is evidence that the ocean evaporated and the ocean floor was exposed to the wind and rain.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Alvarez Hypothesis was formally accepted in 2010, it was proposed in 1980 with sufficient evidence to accept it then. During the intervening 30 years there was a great controversy (Read the Great Dinosaur Controversy) and scientists on both sides of the issue supported their arguments with "evidence" and discounted the others evidence.

Citation required. Where do you get this from?

 

[Job 33:6]

So your explanation for lazarus taxa are that they never went extinct in the first place? The old "nothing to see here" explanation for when we have a problem. You realize that the Permian extinction was extreme. They estimate 95% of all species went extinct. Their is evidence that the ocean evaporated and the ocean floor was exposed to the wind and rain.

Yea exactly. The fossil record has never been perfect. But time has shown us again and again that just because fossils are not present, doesn't mean that a species necessarily did not live. Such as in the case of dinosaurs. Such as in the case of every fossil we've ever found.

There used to be a time where we had no fossils at all. But this never actually meant that life didn't exist. And Darwin predicted that we would find fossils over time that demonstrate common descent. And with time, we have.

And the Permian extinction is no exception to this.

 

[Job 33:6]

So your explanation for lazarus taxa are that they never went extinct in the first place? The old "nothing to see here" explanation for when we have a problem. You realize that the Permian extinction was extreme. They estimate 95% of all species went extinct. Their is evidence that the ocean evaporated and the ocean floor was exposed to the wind and rain.

And one other response. Even in today's time we have countless gaps where fossils are not found in particular strata. But it doesn't mean that life disappeared and then just magically re appeared countless times over. The more feasible explanation is that we just don't have fossils for that particular time. As has been the case with every transitional form and every fossil of every lineage that once was undiscovered but was later discovered.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am confused by your response. You say "nor is there a theory of abiogenesis" and then say that a theory is well supported and well accepted. What is it, is there a theory of abiogenesis or not? It is simple enough to google "theory of abiogenesis" and yes, in the scientific community it would be referred to as a theory, so I am confused by your post.

In the sciences a theory is as good as it gets. You are in effect stating that it is more than a fact since theories explain facts. Abiogenesis is not referred to as a theory in the scientific community. It is currently in that stage of being several hypotheses since aspects of abiogenesis have been explained but not the entire concept. You may be looking at sources that are no very formal. Though far from perfect Wikipedia is often the best starting point and even they recognize that the concept is still in the hypothetical stage:

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia

"Abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life,[3][4][5][a] is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.[6][4][7][8] While the details of this process are still unknown, the prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but an evolutionary process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes.[9][10][11] Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, its possible mechanisms are poorly understood. There are several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred.[12]


Not a theory. Yet. In fact it may always be in the hypothetical stage because it appears that there were multiple possible pathways to life and we may never know exactly which path was followed.

One must be careful when one Googles. If one uses an inappropriate phrase of course you will find articles that support that inappropriate phrase. Instead just do a general Google search, not a biased one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So your explanation for lazarus taxa are that they never went extinct in the first place? The old "nothing to see here" explanation for when we have a problem. You realize that the Permian extinction was extreme. They estimate 95% of all species went extinct. Their is evidence that the ocean evaporated and the ocean floor was exposed to the wind and rain.

Citation needed. No, the ocean did not dry up. I can guarantee that was not what happened. And yes, 95% of species did go extinct. That still leaves quite a few for new species to evolve from.

 

[Ophiolite]

Read "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Kuhn. All scientific revolutions involve a paradigm shift.

It's an interesting work, so I am sure re-reading it for a fourth or fifth time would still bring some new thought to the surface. Conveniently, I have a copy a couple of feet away in the philosophy section of my small library. However, I would be surprised if it persuaded me that you had a valid point. Then again, that may be because the point you are making has become increasingly obscure. Would you like to restate it succinctly so I can determine whether or not I agree with you. (And feel free to point me to specific sections of Kuhn's work you think especially relevant to your argument.)