Evolutionist "poof" theory

[Praxiteles]

sorry, I wasn't trying to say that natural selection disproved evolution... rather, it was just evidence against it.

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.

 

[Arikay]

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.

 

[corvus_corax]

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.)

No Im not.
Generally a theistic evolutionist believes that a deity actually did have a hand in evolution (somehow someway)
I dont believe that.
I said Im willing to say that some possible deity I dont know about started life on this planet (the genesis of the first pre-protocell for example, not evolution itself)
On the other hand, I think a natural explanation is just as likely.
Or more so.
Im not trying to nitpick or 'prove you wrong', just making sure you understand the terms you are using.
I dont even know if a deity exists, much less whether one had anything to do with the first creation of the first pre-protocells

 

[Dennis Moore]

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."

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.

true... but have you ever seen a coke bottle just start self-replicating?

That analogy is so false that I won't even bother trying to debate it.

 

[corvus_corax]

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.

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.
Again, 200 years ago the expanding universe had not been demonstrated. Some people believed it was static (God made it, why would it need to change and expand?). At that time, to say that an expanding universe could not and never would be proven may have seemed accurate, but would have been wrong.

Progress. It's a wonderful thing

 

[imind]

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.

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).

i do not mean to be disrespectful to the OP, but this thread has been done before, several times. i appreciate the fact that you want to learn about evolution, which is why i'm going to refer to you to this site and specifically to this article . these links should answer any questions you may have.

cheers.

 

[The Gregorian]

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.

Because evolution shows less complex organisms forming into more complex organisms, therefore gaining new traits. This is theoretically possible, but I've never seen an example of this happening. Natural selection happens all the time, and is when existing traits are combined and "bad" traits are weeded out. Natural selection = existing information is lost, Evolution = information randomly mutates and just happens to succesfully form, not only traits, but "improves" upon pre-existing traits.

That's just one way to look at it. Natural selection is the opposite of 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.

OK, I'll take your example: Natural selection:evolution::wheel:car.

wheels connected by an axil and attached to a compartment (a car) naturally doesn't go up hill. It can be forced up hill with some outside power source/sort of propulsion (a turbine/reciprocating engine, or by being pulled by an animal or other machine).
likewise, natural selection will not naturally promote evolution, but through an outside power source, evolution can be forced

Word games are fun.

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."

No Im not.
Generally a theistic evolutionist believes that a deity actually did have a hand in evolution (somehow someway)

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...

 

[Hands Open]

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.

You must spread some reputation around before giving it to Dennis Moore again.

 

[Lucretius]

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...

Read this.

 

[The Gregorian]

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.

There's a complete detailed hypotheses which consists of "We don't know yet." That's exactly what confuses me. Creationists have a complete explanation as to how everything happened. It's a complete, logical theory (although unproven). Scientists refute it as nonsense.... but I havn't heard of a better theory... just "we don't know yet" ... 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... ?

honestly, I'm not trying to bash anyone here, I'm just having fun playing with words and pointing out holes in the theory. I know there are HUGE holes in the theory that I choose (creationism), but I like looking at other people's holes sometimes too.

 

[Arikay]

It's pretty simple, mutations would be the engine that pushes the car uphill, or in this case provides more information for natural selection.

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.

 

[Jimmy The Hand]

Part of science is "we don't know, but we're sure gonna keep looking!"

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."

 

[The Gregorian]

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."

go to this thread for discussion on creationism. This thread's only for biogenisis.

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.

What do you usually suspect when you ask a little girl "What did you do yesterday" and she can't give you a straight answer without saying "well first I thought about doing my homework, but there was this bird outside and...." and she goes off for an hour telling you what she did? ring any bells?

I just want a simple answer. I read the links you guys gave and it goes on for pages about "well, first we thought it was this, but we were wrong, then we thought it was that, but we were wrong, now we think it's possible that the origonal proteins may have polymerized this way" Then they completely avoid the question I asked.

I'll ask again:

I know biogenisis usually relys on proteins bumping together, forming chains, until they're in the shape of cells.... According to your beliefs, or popular science, without an outside source, what caused an inanimate cluster of proteins to start metabolizing/replicating/living?

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.

 

[Arikay]

One correction with that,

ID is, "We don't know, thus intelligent being."

 

[Jimmy The Hand]

Good point Arikay.

 

[corvus_corax]

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.

~Ahem~
We dont know for a fact what happened.
We have several theories and hypothesis regarding what could have happened, but dont know for a fact what actually happened.
Okay?
Cool.

However, on THIS page of this thread, posts 24 and 25 explain that "not knowing" isnt the same as "cant know".

 

[The Gregorian]

then what do you THINK happened? I know you don't know for sure... but can anyone summerize their theory? not a bunch of theories that were disproven leading up to "something else happened" ... but the actual theory as to what happened.

 

[Jet Black]

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.

wrong. If we were playing snakes and ladders you have just steppeed on that really long snake and have to go back to square one and start your education again. This is not what evolution requires, and it is a strawman misrepresentation of abiogenesis, and many "Evolutionists" even believe that God created the first living organism.

 

[Jet Black]

then what do you THINK happened?

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.

 

[imind]

Creationists have a complete explanation as to how everything happened. It's a complete, logical theory (although unproven).

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.

Scientists refute it as nonsense

to reword this...scientists have proven it did not happen as described by creationists.

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...

some here do believe that, some don't.

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."

nobody here, save the creationists, are willing to do this. BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW!!

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.

word!!