Debate #1: Is Evolution science or not?

[Ryal Kane]

Jesus sais He is the way,the truth and the life. Call it what you want.
An athiest calling some one arrogant. Now I have truly heard it all.

If that's your definition of 'it all' then you need to get out more.

 

[GeoffCC]

Some problems that I still can't see evolution or abiogenisis solving:

1. I read about replicators and similar crystals on talkorigins, but isn't there a HUGE DNA gap between chemical replicators and a functioning simple cell?

2. At what point did chemical or atomic matter become true life? I don't necessarily mean with a soul, but at least the simple desire to survive and reproduce?

3. I was looking for an evolutionists explanation for how flight evolved on talkorigins, but couldn't find one.

4. Tom I didn't buy your argument to why there are so many universal constants that must be exact in order for us to exist. I don't think it puts the cart before the horse - the fact is we are here to talk about it - so why did the universe come into existence with such a complex matrix of constants in perfect balance to support life????

Geoff

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Some problems that I still can't see evolution or abiogenisis solving:

1. I read about replicators and similar crystals on talkorigins, but isn't there a HUGE DNA gap between chemical replicators and a functioning simple cell?

Okay I am going to take a stab at this, keep in mind I am not an evolutionary or cell biologist I am a social scientist, so others may expand or make minor corrections.

Yes there is a big DNA gap however prions and viruses are smaller forms of “life” than a “simple” cell. As I understand it these go some way towards explain how the cell evolved from bare chemicals.

2. At what point did chemical or atomic matter become true life? I don't necessarily mean with a soul, but at least the simple desire to survive and reproduce?

I am not certain desire comes into it at this point, just as i do not have an active “desire” to breathe or have a heart beat, that pretty much handles itself out of necessity.

3. I was looking for an evolutionists explanation for how flight evolved on talkorigins, but couldn't find one.

I’ve seen explanations of that on natural history programmes, so they are out there. Its not as amazing as it at first seems I seem to recall. Think of the “flying” squirrel for example to see an intermediary between flightless and flight.

4. why did the universe come into existence with such a complex matrix of constants in perfect balance to support life????

Well it didn’t, as far as we know most of the universe is pretty inhospitable to life, Earth is a fairly insignificant speck on the face of he universe as far as area goes.

Ghost

 

[gluadys]

Some problems that I still can't see evolution or abiogenisis solving:

1. I read about replicators and similar crystals on talkorigins, but isn't there a HUGE DNA gap between chemical replicators and a functioning simple cell?

No, but there is a huge gap in what we know about the transition from chemical replicators and a functioning simple cell.

In short it is a knowledge gap, not a nature gap.

2. At what point did chemical or atomic matter become true life? I don't necessarily mean with a soul, but at least the simple desire to survive and reproduce?

That is part of the knowledge gap. We don't know yet when this occurred. It's possible that even if we figure out how it occurred we can still not say when it occurred.

3. I was looking for an evolutionists explanation for how flight evolved on talkorigins, but couldn't find one.

There are other sites besides talkorigins. Try a google on "evolution of flight".

4. Tom I didn't buy your argument to why there are so many universal constants that must be exact in order for us to exist. I don't think it puts the cart before the horse - the fact is we are here to talk about it - so why did the universe come into existence with such a complex matrix of constants in perfect balance to support life????

Geoff

It is entirely possible that the correct answer is "there was no reason".

What you have here is the difference between the Strong Anthropic Principle and the Weak Anthropic Principle.

Weak Anthropic Principle: we are here because the universe happens to be the sort of universe which allows creatures like us to exist.

Strong Anthropic Principle: we are here because the universe was planned to be the sort of univers which allows creatures like us to exist.

The weak principle is a simple observation and is a perfectly respectable scientific statement.

The strong principle adds in the element of a plan, which implies a planner, but does not show that a planner exists or tell us anything about the planner. Nor does it tell us how to find out anything about the planner. So it is a statement of faith.

 

[Novaknight1]

How do we know the Earth is 4.5 billion years old? We have lots of dating methods (according to Ken Ham, almost 100), that say Earth is NOT 4.5 billion years old.

 

[michabo]

How do we know the Earth is 4.5 billion years old?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_earth

 

[The Lady Kate]

How do we know the Earth is 4.5 billion years old? We have lots of dating methods (according to Ken Ham, almost 100), that say Earth is NOT 4.5 billion years old.

And what does Ken Ham have?

 

[Sphere]

And what does Ken Ham have?

a bible. So, it must be true.

 

[GeoffCC]

There are other sites besides talkorigins. Try a google on "evolution of flight".

I looked up a few sites as you suggested however I think the explanations were rather flimsy. It would seem to me that long before a limb could even approximate a wing to allow flight or gliding, any usefulness/dexterity as an arm would have long disappeared - so why would natural selection favour a limb that was neither a functioning wing nor a useful arm/claw??

In pursuit of truth.
Geoff

 

[GeoffCC]

Thanks for your answers but I'm not convinced.

That is part of the knowledge gap. We don't know yet when this occurred. It's possible that even if we figure out how it occurred we can still not say when it occurred.

And here-in lies the problem - with all accumulated scientific knowledge, not even simple elements like H, C, and O can be combined to create life in any laboratory. It is hard for a rational person to accept that organic life just appeared without external influence. [I know, abiogenesis and not evolution].

Weak Anthropic Principle: we are here because the universe happens to be the sort of universe which allows creatures like us to exist.

I can't accept the probabilities that this situation requires. I've read about scientists theorising that we happen to exist in a universe that allows life, among an infinity of parallel universes. I'm sorry but it would take more faith for me to believe in that, than in God.

I'd love counter explanations.
Geoff

 

[Data]

And here-in lies the problem - with all accumulated scientific knowledge, not even simple elements like H, C, and O can be combined to create life in any laboratory. It is hard for a rational person to accept that organic life just appeared without external influence. [I know, abiogenesis and not evolution].

We can, we have.

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20020713/fob8.asp

I can't accept the probabilities that this situation requires. I've read about scientists theorising that we happen to exist in a universe that allows life, among an infinity of parallel universes. I'm sorry but it would take more faith for me to believe in that, than in God.

Beleive in God then, no-one has any problem with that. You don't have to be a YEC to be christian.

 

[notto]

I looked up a few sites as you suggested however I think the explanations were rather flimsy. It would seem to me that long before a limb could even approximate a wing to allow flight or gliding, any usefulness/dexterity as an arm would have long disappeared - so why would natural selection favour a limb that was neither a functioning wing nor a useful arm/claw??

In pursuit of truth.
Geoff

You seem to be jumping to a conclusion and asking a question based on it before you have established that the conclusion is correct.

You need to show that the usefulness/dexterity disappeared first. At this point, all you have is 'it would seem to me'.

On the other hand, why would something be designed with wings that don't allow for flight? We have many examples of this in nature. Are you suggesting that these are poor designs?

 

[stone]

Humans are the intelligence that evolved from mammals. Science is only the study of something indepth, so yes it is science. Life is created by god. The truth is simple.

 

[Novaknight1]

"Humans are the intelligence that evolved from mammals. Science is only the study of something indepth, so yes it is science. Life is created by god. The truth is simple."

How do you know they Evolved? Were you there? You have to OBSERVE something for it to be science.

 

[The Lady Kate]

"Humans are the intelligence that evolved from mammals. Science is only the study of something indepth, so yes it is science. Life is created by god. The truth is simple."

How do you know they Evolved? Were you there? You have to OBSERVE something for it to be science.

There goes mathematics as a science....

Can you OBSERVE a true straight line? How about a circle? Can you OBSERVE the concept of "four?"

No. We can draw crude symbols to represent these things, but since we cannot OBSERVE them, math is not a science...

(Note how I resisted the all-too-obvious "Well, there goes Creationism as a science" argument )

 

[edmn61]

Evolution is science.
According to science, we evolved from apes.
Religion says that man and woman were created in the state that we currently are.

 

[edmn61]

Oh, maybe religions other than christian believe that evolution is part of religion, but Creation and Evolution is a Christian place.

 

[Novaknight1]

There goes mathematics as a science....

Can you OBSERVE a true straight line? How about a circle? Can you OBSERVE the concept of "four?"

No. We can draw crude symbols to represent these things, but since we cannot OBSERVE them, math is not a science...

(Note how I resisted the all-too-obvious "Well, there goes Creationism as a science" argument )

That's different. Math is based on constants. Evolution is based ENTIRELY on faith.

 

[Novaknight1]

Evolution is science.
According to science, we evolved from apes.
Religion says that man and woman were created in the state that we currently are.

If Evolution's science, why did Stephen J. Gould propose punctuated equilibrium which says there isn't going to be any evidence?

 

[Novaknight1]

Evolution is science.
According to science, we evolved from apes.
Religion says that man and woman were created in the state that we currently are.

Have you ever seen an ape turn into a person? So how do you know it occured?