Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The Gregorian said:sorry, I wasn't trying to say that natural selection disproved evolution... rather, it was just evidence against it.
No Im not.The Gregorian said:woot! I just learned something. That makes you a "TE." YAY! I win! (sorry... I'm in another thread with Praxiteles... he taught me new acronyms.)
First, then you're not reading the right pages. There's more detailed hypotheses out there than that!The Gregorian said:Yea... I've googled it a lot... and I've seen, in a LOT of places: "proteins mixed together until, over a long period of time, it animated." There's a big gap there. I don't need to know the formulas or dates I just want a discription more than "Over a long period of time... something... happened."
That analogy is so false that I won't even bother trying to debate it.true... but have you ever seen a coke bottle just start self-replicating?
By way of comparison, 200 years ago the structure of the atom was not known. At that time, to say that it could not or never would be known may have seemed accurate, but would have been wrong.Dennis Moore said:Second ... we don't know everything yet. Do you have an issue with the answer 'we don't know yet'? Some of the vagueness of abiogenesis does stem from our incomplete knowledge of the subject. That's what science is for, at least in part: figuring this sort of thing out. That's why they call it progress.
it should be noted that evolution provides 2 mechanisms which result in a loss of genetic variation (natural/sexual selection and genetic drift), and 3 that provide for an increase in variation (recombination, gene flow, and mutation).So evolution, being a combination of mutations (which we know occur) and natural selection (which we also know occurs), does have, as a net result, an increase in information.
Praxiteles said:Really? Since natural selection is essential for evolution, why would you think it would also constitute evidence against it?
Without selection (natural, sexual, artificial) there could be no evolution.
Except that natural selection isn't evidence against evolution anymore than wheels are evidence against a car going uphill.
Abiogenesis is still a theory in development, however we do know a bit. I would recomend doing a search for proto cell and dr fox.
No Im not.
Generally a theistic evolutionist believes that a deity actually did have a hand in evolution (somehow someway)
Dennis Moore said:Have no Creationists on these forums heard of Google? If you really want clear info on abiogenesis hypotheses, and not the half-butted description your prof gave you, just Google "abiogenesis". It's really that simple. Heck just go the Wikipedia and look up Abiogenesis or Origin of Life for some simple, clear articles.
All "life" is in this sense is self-replication. Once self-replicating molecules formed, copying errors could begin; copying errors lead to changes in replication success based on local conditions, and hey! that's evolution.
The Gregorian said:Anyway... all Dr. Fox did was show that proteins tend to clump together. The same thing can be done with a bowl of cheerios. Ever notice the last few O's that float around gravitate toward eachother? That's just because the surface tension of water tends to push objects together. The same explanation can be given to the proteins in Fox's tube.
I've done searches.... I havn't found a simple answer yet... just a lot of "trust me... it happens... over a long period of time... "
can someone just give me a simple "acids clumped together until they formed (this sort of cell that is observed in nature), then it was struck by lightning animating the cell, hense biogenisis."
oh, sorry, my bad. Most theistic evolutionists I know just think God made the first cells or basic life forms and let evolution do the rest...
Dennis Moore said:First, then you're not reading the right pages. There's more detailed hypotheses out there than that!
Second ... we don't know everything yet. Do you have an issue with the answer 'we don't know yet'? Some of the vagueness of abiogenesis does stem from our incomplete knowledge of the subject. That's what science is for, at least in part: figuring this sort of thing out. That's why they call it progress.
The problem with Intelligent Design is "we don't know, and that's as far as we will go"
The problem with Creationism is "we KNOW and nothing will change our minds."
I would recommend searching harder, not only can evidence for beneficial mutations be found, evidence for an increase in complexity can be found as well.
~Ahem~The Gregorian said:So far I've got three answers:
1: "over a long period of time... something... happened."
2: We don't know.
3: omygod, you don't even know that, do some research, just google it... that's such a stupid question.
Those all equate to #2.
The Gregorian said:AKA Spontanious Biogenisis.
Non-theists generally accept "Evolution" as the means by which we exist today as we are.... but Evolution requires life in order to change life. Evolution SPECIFICALLY does not say how life started in the first place. It all traces back to a primordial ooze where proteins were randomly floating around in a puddle, then... umm... a living, functional cell existed... then started splitting, and "evolving" into all life today.
The Gregorian said:then what do you THINK happened?
give me a break. even as a christian, i can say that even the belief in god is illogical, let alone giving him credit for creation, as described literally in the bible.Creationists have a complete explanation as to how everything happened. It's a complete, logical theory (although unproven).
to reword this...scientists have proven it did not happen as described by creationists.Scientists refute it as nonsense
some here do believe that, some don't.But it can't be a god... because that's silly... We don't believe in magical god fairies floating around making life... but we believe life magically made itself... with no fairies at all...
nobody here, save the creationists, are willing to do this. BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW!!can someone just give me a simple "acids clumped together until they formed (this sort of cell that is observed in nature), then it was struck by lightning animating the cell, hense biogenisis."
word!!why do we have to THINK anything happened? why can't we just admit that there is not sufficient evidence for certain things to come to any reasonable conclusion on the matter.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?