Evolution=Atheism

[Arikay]

One big problem is that abiogenesis is chemistry and evolution is biology. I could maybe see them as one theory, in the future, but they aren't right now, they are seperate.

 

[The Son of Him]

One big problem is that abiogenesis is chemistry and evolution is biology. I could maybe see them as one theory, in the future, but they aren't right now, they are seperate.

I understand , but biology at its core depends of chemistry, and in turn chemistry consists of physics (interactions of outer electrons in molecules or atoms ).
So you may be right we may have to wait to someone to encompass both in a single theory. (Some one not so shortsighted as previous posters !!!).

 

[lucaspa]

I agree .That is what I am pointing to.
See, the capacity to evolve sould be a "built in" capacity of the first living organism spawned from an abiogenesis theory. So I interpret this to be a link between the two.

That interpretation is the problem. Read my other posts. Notice that I make a distinction between chemistry needed to get the first life and evolution to diversify life.

Abiogenesis must yield an organism capable of evolution. That's not a link. It's a result of abiogenesis and a way to test abiogenesis theories.

May be the origin of life and life evolving share some common principle, (a quantum mechanical one perhaps ?) that could be encompassed in a unifed THEORY of LIFE.

That's a NO! This is reductionism gone wild. We can't even reduce evolution to molecular mechanisms! For instance, people have tried to reduce evolution to "changes in allele frequency over time". That doesn't work because it ignores the mechanisms of isolation of populations -- allopatric and ecological -- that lead to new species. Logicall, "changes in allele frequencies over time" would only give anaganesis -- one species turning, over time, into another species. It doesn't give us cladogenesis -- one species splitting into 2 species.

So, to try to say that the chemical reactions that give the first life are the same mechanisms used in evolution isn't going to work. Two separate areas of study.

 

[lucaspa]

I understand , but biology at its core depends of chemistry, and in turn chemistry consists of physics (interactions of outer electrons in molecules or atoms ).
So you may be right we may have to wait to someone to encompass both in a single theory. (Some one not so shortsighted as previous posters !!!).

But biology involves interactions that are not just chemistry. And chemistry involves interactions that are not just physics.

For instance, you can chemically describe your car engine in terms of physics and chemistry, but that isn't going to provide you a useful explanation why the car doesn't start! There are higher-order interactions that come into play.

 

[lucaspa]

See, the capacity to evolve sould be a "built in" capacity of the first living organism spawned from an abiogenesis theory. So I interpret this to be a link between the two.
May be the origin of life and life evolving share some common principle, (a quantum mechanical one perhaps ?) that could be encompassed in a unifed THEORY of LIFE.

Let's look at the abiogenesis I know happens -- thermal polymerization of amino acids to proteins and formation of protocells.

First, you have dry heating of amino acids. This can happen by having an amino acid solution in a frying pan or a tidal pool on a hot summer's day. The heat first evaporates the water (concentrating the amino acids along the way) and then polymerizes the amino acids to form proteins. That film of proteins is not alive. But proteins are a major molecule in living cells. Now add water. Due to the chemical properties of the proteins in their interaction with water (water-hating and water-loving parts of the proteins) they will spontaneously form cells. Due to the diversity of properties of the proteins (no two are exactly alike) the proteins, between them, have the chemical properties such that the cells are "alive". They metabolize, they grow, they respond to stimuli, and they reproduce. But none of this had been due to evoution! We haven't seen mutations or natural selection in any shape or form.

However, due to chemistry, the cells do reproduce. When they do, they divide their proteins between them. Now, at this point, natural selection might work on them. That is, those protocells best able to metabolize and reproduce would leave more offspring. Therefore, if there is some way of faithfully making proteins that give this advantage, they would be subject to natural selection.

But you can see that we have separate issues here: making the cells by chemistry and whether the cells are capable of being subject to natural selection and diversifying.

 

[The Son of Him]

But biology involves interactions that are not just chemistry. And chemistry involves interactions that are not just physics.

For instance, you can chemically describe your car engine in terms of physics and chemistry, but that isn't going to provide you a useful explanation why the car doesn't start! There are higher-order interactions that come into play.

I sort of understand what you mean , but could you give me a better example to fully grasp what you are saying.

I mean I still can describe physically that there is no spark to start the combustion of fuel unless we have physically someone turning on the key.

Please give me examples of higher order interactions sounds interesting idea.

 

[Ishmael Borg]

If I'm studying box turtle reproduction, which falls under the umbrella of "life science", what do I need to know about abiogenesis?

If we're discussing the physical properties of gold, do we need to tie it all back to supernovae to have a meaningful discussion?

Are the Sumerian and Babylonian origins of the OT stories tied in to every discussion of biblical theology?

What's so tough about this?

 

[lucaspa]

I sort of understand what you mean , but could you give me a better example to fully grasp what you are saying.

I mean I still can describe physically that there is no spark to start the combustion of fuel unless we have physically someone turning on the key.

Say your car won't start. You can give me detailed chemical formula of gasoline combusting to carbon dioxide and water, electrical potentials and the formation of electrical charges spanning a gap, electrons moving thru wires, the equations adn dynamics of fluids in pipes, but none of that will tell you that the fuel pump is broken. That's a higher order interaction.

Similarly, I can tell you all about the enzymes involved DNA replication and exactly how point mutations occur. I can go over population genetics and give you the equations on how alleles become fixed. However, none of that is going to explain that Great Danes and chihuahuas are reproductively isolated due to genital incompatibility.

Reductionism is fine, within moderation. But I'll let Ernst Mayr explain:

"No Darwinian I know questions the fact that the processes of organic evolution are consistent with the laws of the physical sciences, but it makes no sense to say that biological evolution has been "reduced" to physical laws. Biological evolution is the result of specific processes that impinge on specific systems, the explanation of which is meaningful only at the level of complexity of those processes and those systems. And the classical theory of evolution has not been reduced to a "molecular theory of evolution," an assertion based on such reductionist definitions of evolution as "a change in gene frequencies in natural populations." This reductionist definition omits the crucial aspects of evolution: changes in diversity and adaptation. (Once I gave a lump of sugar to a racoon in a zoo. He ran with it to his water basin and washed it vigorously until there was nothing left of it. No complex system should be taken apart to the extent that nothing of significance is left.)" Ernst Mayr, Evolution, Scientific American 239: 47-55, Sept. 1978.

 

[The Son of Him]

If I'm studying box turtle reproduction, which falls under the umbrella of "life science", what do I need to know about abiogenesis?

If we're discussing the physical properties of gold, do we need to tie it all back to supernovae to have a meaningful discussion?

Are the Sumerian and Babylonian origins of the OT stories tied in to every discussion of biblical theology?

What's so tough about this?

Nothing, you are not following the thread or my question.

Evolution makes sense to me , I only asked if there is a deeper connection between abiogenesis and evolution , such as evolution to be a logical inevitable consequence of the first ?

Thanks God that Darwin himself did not pay attention to those ignorants who said :"to understand the origin of a particular species do you need to know the origin of them all ??" or otherwise we will not have evolution theory today.

Mine is just an innocent question, I am not attacking either theory, I just asked if there was a connection that's all.

 

[Ishmael Borg]

Nothing, you are not following the thread or my question.

I WAS following the thread, and your question. Maybe you need to re-read my post. I was also responding to your op.

Evolution makes sense to me , I only asked if there is a deeper connection between abiogenesis and evolution , such as evolution to be a logical inevitable consequence of the first ?

Yeah, I got it.

Thanks God that Darwin himself did not pay attention to those ignorants who said :"to understand the origin of a particular species do you need to know the origin of them all ??" or otherwise we will not have evolution theory today.

I catch your not-so-thinly-veiled insult, but maybe you don't understand what I'm saying. Lucaspa's doing a better job than I'm willing or able to do, so I'll leave you guys to it.

Mine is just an innocent question, I am not attacking either theory, I just asked if there was a connection that's all.

But in your op you questioned evolutionists' reluctance to discuss both abio and evo together. I think you've got a better understanding of the reasons at this point in the thread.

 

[Light in the Darkness]

I only asked if there is a deeper connection between abiogenesis and evolution , such as evolution to be a logical inevitable consequence of the first ?

No. There is no connection between abiogenesis and evolution.

Thanks God that Darwin himself did not pay attention to those ignorants who said :"to understand the origin of a particular species do you need to know the origin of them all ??"

Indeed. In answer to those ignorants: no, you don't.

Mine is just an innocent question, I am not attacking either theory, I just asked if there was a connection that's all.

You've been asking for a very long time, and despite being told "no" repeatedly, you have yet to quit asking. Once more, no.

 

[The Son of Him]

You've been asking for a very long time, and despite being told "no" repeatedly, you have yet to quit asking. Once more, no.

Once more should you quit asking for a connection between quantum theory and relativity theory ??

 

[Light in the Darkness]

Once more should you quit asking for a connection between quantum theory and relativity theory ??

I wasn't asking whether there was a connection, I was answering your repeated questioning concerning any potential link between abiogenesis and evolution.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Why is not abiogenesis linked in anyway to evolution ??

I do not get those who claim otherwise. Evolution only speaks about living organisms yada,yada,yada. But seriously, life , and everything about it including its origin should be under the same umbrella, come on !!!.
To defend evolution alone and fearing to talk about abiogenesis is childish (for those who are atheists).

Why ??

Imagine you're watching one of those extravigant domino displays like they have for the Guiness Book of World Records, where there are thousands of dominoes all falling in sequence, many of them branching off into flowering patterns. The thing is that these dominoes are huge and this is happening very VERY slowly. It was also already happening before you got there.

At first, you're only aware of the columns of dominoes that are still standing. But then you notice the fallen dominoes too. At first, it looks like a mass of toppled pieces, but as you look more closely, you realize that all these pieces lie one-atop-another in distinct lines. Some of them begin with fallen pieces, and some of them lead directly from those that are still standing. Why?

Then you discover that some dominoes that are actually in the process of falling, although its happening so slowly that it is rare to ever actually see one strike another or collapse. But you do get to see both of these on occasion, so you know for sure that it really does happen, and doesn't just look like it does. You can see that "knocking" does occur, and that's what you decide to call your study of this phenomenon.

Finally, you notice that every single standing domino has a line of fallen ones behind it. As you look at this more carefully, scanning further and further back, you can see that each of these seemingly separate lines converge, and converge again, leading all the way back to a single point of origin for all of them. Now, obviously, "knocking" is the explanation for each of these toppled pieces. But that obviously can't be the explanation for the first one can it? What was there to knock against it?

More important than this are the anti-knockers, groups of people who initially believed that these obelisks were carved in place and can't be toppled. Now they accept that some knocking occurs (only because they can see it too) but that only so many can be knocked over before they have to stop and be unknockable again. They don’t give any reason why these things are supposed to stop getting knocked over, and say they don't even have to have any reason to say so.

Yet they demand to know how the first domino fell. That is a fair question. It could have been blown over, toppled by some unknown instable vibration, or it could even have been pushed over deliberately, we just don't know. And if it was pushed down deliberately, we don’t know who or what did it, although there are several groups promoting different persons whom they think done it. It gets weirder when none of these people has any reason to suspect any particular person, yet they all say they “know” it was their guy and not the guys promoted by the other groups. But what’s really weird is that for some reason, the anti-knockers actually think that if you don't know how the first domino fell, then it means you can't say that all these other obviously-toppled items have ever really been "knocked" down!

After hearing this, you find yourself scratching your head in wonder at how anyone can reach such a strange conclusion.

 

[lucaspa]

Just like Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity.

They ARE separate which deal with different aspects of energy and matter (one at short scales and the other at large ones )as we know it but :arguing them as one and the same doesn't make sense ??.

There is people trying to unify them into a single theory (strings and branes perhaps ).

And those people haven't succeeded. What they are trying to do is come up with a quantum theory of gravity. It's not really uniting Relativity and QM, but rather trying to find a way to make gravity quantum.

 

[lucaspa]

Imagine you're watching one of those extravigant domino displays like they have for the Guiness Book of World Records, where there are thousands of dominoes all falling in sequence, many of them branching off into flowering patterns. The thing is that these dominoes are huge and this is happening very VERY slowly. It was also already happening before you got there.

Aron-Ra, you missed the whole point. You should have read the thread. Son of Him is not arguing against evolution. What he wants is to tie the theory of evolution to a theory of abiogenesis. That is, have the same processes that give rise to the first life also be the same processes responsible for evolution.

Now, go back and look at the counter-arguments. Abiogenesis and evolution involve different processes.

No wonder you "win" your debates. You don't listen to what your opponent says and simply ignore him. Creationists "win" in much the same fashion.

 

[lucaspa]

Evolution makes sense to me , I only asked if there is a deeper connection between abiogenesis and evolution , such as evolution to be a logical inevitable consequence of the first ?

And the answer continues to be "no". One of the requirements for an entity to be "alive" is that it reproduce. However, Darwinism requires that the reproduction produces an accurate copy of the original with some variation between individuals.

Now, the protocells reproduce but the question is whether the daughter cells are close enough to the original for there to be inheritance. Let's say for argument that there is not. On the other side of the coin, you can have RNAs that copy themselves, but the copying is so precise that there is never any variation! In both cases, you would have "life" but can't have evolution.

 

[lucaspa]

Once more should you quit asking for a connection between quantum theory and relativity theory ??

And once more: that is not what is happening! Instead, what is being looked for is a means of quantizing gravity. QM will cover all the forces in the universe except gravity. Gravity is not quantized. It is continuous instead of coming in discrete bundles -- quanta. So, at singularities all theories that depend on continuous gravity -- Relativity -- break down.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Aron-Ra, you missed the whole point. You should have read the thread. Son of Him is not arguing against evolution. What he wants is to tie the theory of evolution to a theory of abiogenesis. That is, have the same processes that give rise to the first life also be the same processes responsible for evolution.

I knew that because I had already read the thread, and I did not miss the point. That is my standard analogous explanation for the specific question he asked. I knew he wasn’t arguing against evolution because (despite what you think) I had read his other posts to this thread up to that point.

Now, go back and look at the counter-arguments. Abiogenesis and evolution involve different processes.

I know that! How could you imagine that I wouldn't know that? I had asked you not to jump to these negative assumptions so quickly when you were wrong about me before. But apparently, you either don’t listen, or don’t learn from your mistakes. For example, do you still think I use evolution to push atheism? I didn’t get anything like an apology for your last failed accusation, and I’m sure I won’t get one now either. Did I strike a nerve with you? Why do you constantly do this?

No wonder you "win" your debates. You don't listen to what your opponent says and simply ignore him. Creationists "win" in much the same fashion.

I could let your other stupid assumption slide, but not this one. This one I’m going to call you out on. I formally challenge you to find any of my debates either here or on any other forum where I have either failed to consider or counter any point levied against me, or where I have ignored any question my opponents asked. In fact, I’ll even show you every concluded formal debate I’ve ever had with creationists to date.

Aron-Ra vs Dave P. (Steve Muscat) Talk.Origins
Aron-Ra vs YM1 alt.talk.creationism
Aron-Ra vs NuclearX NucleusWeb.net
Aron-Ra vs Dr. Luke Randall WasDarwinRight.com
(This last one wasn’t actually accepted, and it wasn’t just with Luke Randall, but his whole team.)

Now, Lucaspa, tell me, how did I win each of these debates? Can you find in any of these even one point of contention I failed to address? Or a single question I have ignored? Or was your accusation totally wrong?

I “win” each of these debates simply because dogmatists are incapable of defending their own nonsense, and are unable to account for the evidence I show without questioning their position, which is something they can’t or won't allow themselves to do. That, and the fact that none of them are able to adequately answer this simple question: (Aron-Ra posting as Gojirasaurus dios Creationtalk.com) That’s why I win every debate by default in the very first round. And I'll bet the reason you are so hot against me is that you can't answer that either.

Don’t be so quick to judge me, at least not until you improve your judgment.

 

[TheJewsAreCOMING]

.