assumptions of evolution

[gamespotter10]

oncedecieved, how would I go about disproving that there was a creator?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Now, I am fully aware of the evidence for common ancestry between humans and apes.

However, I think there may be some assumptions about evolution

the first one is that abiogenesis happened only once

the second one is that all life on earth shares a common ancestor.

what evidence for UNIVERSAL common descent do we have?

some theorise that abiogenesis is still occuring to this day.

One theory of abiogenesis postulates that it occurs on crystal surfaces near "black smokers"... undersea volcanic vents. Conditions there today are near identical to early primordial conditions when abiogenesis would have occured, and so there is every possibility that the process is still occuring today.

So... why aren't we seeing all manner of new and exotic life forms coming from these vents? Natural selection again. The first organisms would have evolved and been more advance than newly "abiogenesised" organisms, and been able to outcompete, and, quite possibly, predate them before they could establish themselves.

Simply put, the bacterium with a billion year ancestral heritage can eat any newly formed simple proto-cell.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

oncedecieved, how would I go about disproving that there was a creator?

you can't disprove anything.

However, you can draw conclusions based on evidence... and, as yet, none of the available evidenc indicates a creator.

 

[gamespotter10]

you can't disprove anything.

However, you can draw conclusions based on evidence... and, as yet, none of the available evidenc indicates a creator.

i was simply pointing out how her objections to evolution were purely pseduoscientific on the basis of unfalsfiability of her objections

 

[Loudmouth]

True. All I want injected is that nested hierarchy does not eliminate or deny that God was not involved for those who would claim that.

The germ theory of disease does not eliminate the possiblity of invisible flu demons, but you really have to ask yourself why you would invoke invisible flu demons when there is a well tested and well supported theory that explains disease.

Transitional species again does not say that a Creator creating with the same elements/chemicals/ and so forth would not look the same way.

What evidence, if found, would disprove that a Creator created what we see in nature?

 

[Loudmouth]

ATG is adenine-thymine-guanine

Yes, it is perfectly possible. (Chemistry people, correct me if I'm talking rubbish ). Codons don't determine amino acids directly; codons in mRNA bind to a complementary anticodon on a tRNA molecule, which has an amino acid stuck to its other end. As far as I know which tRNA binds which AA is pretty arbitrary; the correspondence is determined by the enzymes (aminoacyl tRNA synthetases) that sew tRNA and AA together. These have separate recognition sites for the anticodon and the amino acid.

That's an accurate assessment. The moral of the story is that once the tRNA and amino acid relationships are solidified you can't suddenly change those associations. Why? A change in this association would change EVERY protein, and probably not for the best. Proteins can handle small changes, or even protein domain swapping, but you can't start changing every 10th amino acid and hope to have a functional protein.

The "universal" genetic code is actually not universal, although most of the codons mean the same AA or punctuation between any two organisms; here is a summary of the different variants.

The important bit is that the codon differences occur in the last base of the codon. This relationship was the last to evolve, while the 1st and 2nd base in the codon evolved in that order.

 

[Split Rock]

could you explain how a nested hierarchy is evidence for universal common descent?

Although others here have gone a bit off on a tangent with the universal gentic code, what I was referring to was that life on earth forms nearly identical nested hierarchies via both classic comparative morphology and modern comparative genetics.

 

[Split Rock]

IF all living forms are from a common Creator the same would apply...no?

Is that a prediction? If there was no universal code for codon usage, would that disprove creationism?

 

[Oncedeceived]

oncedecieved, how would I go about disproving that there was a creator?

You can't.
You can't prove Him either.
You can't prove most of anything in Science either.

 

[Oncedeceived]

i was simply pointing out how her objections to evolution were purely pseduoscientific on the basis of unfalsfiability of her objections

What were my objections to evolution then?

 

[Oncedeceived]

The germ theory of disease does not eliminate the possiblity of invisible flu demons, but you really have to ask yourself why you would invoke invisible flu demons when there is a well tested and well supported theory that explains disease.

I would totally agree if we are talking only in scientific terms here. What I was referring to in my post was that it is easy when we see things from the past in the present. We can see the connectedness of life and see certain processes and some can assume that those processes alone take away the possibility of God.

What evidence, if found, would disprove that a Creator created what we see in nature?

I don't think that is possible.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That is logically unsound. You are adding an extra entity that has no support from the data. Or do you also say that God does things such as holds atoms together using the strong nuclear force? There is the same amount of evidence for both.

Scientifically yes. See my post that explains what I was referring to.


Reread what I wrote, I said that creationism and ID are the same and stated a very poor example of revising a creationist textbook into an ID textbook. Basically, you take "creationist", highlight "reastion"and replace it with "design proponents" yielding cdesign proponentsists, as such it's a great example of point mutation. (actually, several point mutations and a few additions)

LOL

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's kind of my point. You assume that a creator would use the same codon usage for all life. Is that an impossible assumption to make?

What I meant by what I said is that a Creator creating life could as well used common elements for His creation. I was presenting a possibility.

Creationism is unfalsifiable because it is made thus by it's proponents. Radioactive decay disproved a young earth, but creationists then argue, ad hoc, that decay rates were not constant throughout history. Or, even worse, they propose Omphalos like ideas, such as star light being made in transit.

The creation narrative of Genesis 1 has predictions so to speak that many have been led to believe to be falsified. Now it is true that it can not be proven or falsified in the way that science is modeled. I think that as time goes on, Genesis 1 will make more sense and will be clearer in respect to supportive scientific evidence. Science can be used as a tool for determining the accuracy of Genesis 1.

 

[shevar]

You can't.
You can't prove Him either.
You can't prove most of anything in Science either.

A: Science in the middle if a sentence isn't written with a capital S, it isn't a religion.

B: *ugh* You have no idea what science is right? The simple fact that we have cars, planes, megastores, buildings prove most science is correct.

 

[Christian Soldier]

The germ theory of disease does not eliminate the possiblity of invisible flu demons, but you really have to ask yourself why you would invoke invisible flu demons when there is a well tested and well supported theory that explains disease.

^A very typical combination straw man and "poison the well" argument used by atheists.

Of course "Loudmouth" ( ) neglects to mention that there aren't any creation scientists who claim that there are "invisible flu demons".

By the way, the scientist whose experiments confirmed the germ theory of disease was none other than Louis Pasteur---devout Christian and anti-evolutionist!

Pasteur disproved the various idiotic abiogenesis/spontaneous generation hypotheses that were being proposed by the atheists/evolutionists of his day.

Pasteur's research has never been falsified. There is no credible scientific proof that abiogenesis/spontaneous generation has EVER occurred. It is simply an atheist creation myth that atheists accept as a matter of faith.

Elite atheist scientists like Francis Crick and Fred Hoyle understand that abiogenesis/spontaneous generation isn't a scientifically viable hypothesis, which is why they've had to resort to other ridiculous atheist creation myths like "panspermia".

If you want to read about some of the utterly ridiculous things that atheists believe in, do a google search with these keywords--- crick hoyle panspermia.

Read about Crick's "rocket sperms" and Hoyle's "comet creatures". You'll LYAO when you read what utter nonsense elite atheist scientists believe.

 

[RedAndy]

Pasteur disproved the various idiotic abiogenesis/spontaneous generation hypotheses that were being proposed by the atheists/evolutionists of his day.

Abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are NOT the same. Abiogenesis is the initial formation of living material from non-living chemicals. Life is simply a series of chemical reactions, and the process of abiogenesis involves the initiation of those reactions. The first "organisms" produced by any abiogenesis process would be extremely simple (presumably self-catalysing chemical reactions, or something similar).

Spontaneous generation is, as the name suggests, the sudden formation of complex life forms from non-living matter. For example, it was initially believed that if you left out a piece of rotting meat, maggots would spontaneously form from the meat itself (rather than, as we know now, from eggs laid by flies). Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation; he did nothing that falsified abiogenesis.

Learn to science!

 

[Christian Soldier]

Abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are NOT the same. Abiogenesis is the initial formation of living material from non-living chemicals. Life is simply a series of chemical reactions, and the process of abiogenesis involves the initiation of those reactions. The first "organisms" produced by any abiogenesis process would be extremely simple (presumably self-catalysing chemical reactions, or something similar).

Spontaneous generation is, as the name suggests, the sudden formation of complex life forms from non-living matter. For example, it was initially believed that if you left out a piece of rotting meat, maggots would spontaneously form from the meat itself (rather than, as we know now, from eggs laid by flies). Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation; he did nothing that falsified abiogenesis.

Learn to science!

You're the one who needs to learn some science. Spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are the same thing, and Pasteur falsified it.

Not one living thing in all of history has been scientifically proven to have originated via spontaneous generation/abiogenesis.

From Encylopedia Britannica Online:

"Spontaneous Generation

also called Abiogenesis, the hypothetical process by which living organisms develop from nonliving matter; also, the archaic theory that utilizes this process to explain the origin of life. Pieces of cheese and bread wrapped in rags and left in a dark corner, for example, were thus thought to produce mice, according to this theory, because after several weeks, there were mice in the rags."

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9069208/spontaneous-generation

 

[Bobfr]

Pasteur a devout christian ? Might be joking ? He was not catholic, and he also euthanize some people you know.

And you are mixing two different meaning of the word :
- Aristotelician abiogenesis also called spontaneous generation : false, of course, not referring to the origin of life, but stating than living organism can appear from non-living matter
- Abiogenesis : reffering to the origin of life, how did the life appear, when did the first organic molecules appear, and so on.

 

[flatworm]

What I meant by what I said is that a Creator creating life could as well used common elements for His creation. I was presenting a possibility.

Unfortunately it's one that would, if true, destroy Abrahamic theology as we know it.

You see, the "common designer" idea is proposed because of a known behaviour of human designers- design reuse. Design Reuse is employed for one reason: limited resources. Reusing parts and designs reduces design time, design cost, tooling investment for manufacturing, training requirements, and maintenance costs. It also improves reliability without the need to redo all previous testing.

Not one of the above is of any use to an omniscient, omnipotent being.

Then, there's the problem that design reuse does not restrict design to a nested heirarchy. Re-use does not, for example, rule out winged horses.

Then, there's the problem that design reuse does not explain the chronology of the fossil record. An omnipotent designer can place oak trees in the carboniferous. There aren't any.

 

[notto]

Pasteur disproved the various idiotic abiogenesis/spontaneous generation hypotheses that were being proposed by the atheists/evolutionists of his day.

Name one of these 'atheists/evolutionist' and the theory that they proposed.

You are simply making stuff up.