If evolution is true- create life

[random_guy]

Laboratory experiments are not proof that it happens within nature itself, where conditions are not controlled. That ought to be something YECs keep in mind because many of the so called breakthroughs have been in labs with controlled environments.

This statement seems to point that you're arguing since we control variables in the lab, they do not reflect what happens in reality.

To me it seems the same as me going into a room, where i have all the parts I need, good lighting, tools, and I build a laptop. When I am finished, I go and tell the world that it is possible that a laptop can be built on its own, in nature. That is how ridiculous it sounds to me.

Even worst is this statement. Tell me, is it ridiculous to say that when we mix certain existing elements in nature, they form amino acids? Why or why not?

You are aware that scientific method follows a methodology, and evolution, in no way, is exempt. If you want to successfully attack how experiments are performed, you need to give a concrete example instead of pulling stuff from thin air.

 

[Critias]

This statement seems to point that you're arguing since we control variables in the lab, they do not reflect what happens in reality.

It doesn't. One needs to have an understanding of the different conditions and environments of nature and laboratories. Because specific conditions and environments are set within a lab doesn't mean the outcome will be the same in nature where the conditions and environments are different than that within the lab.

You don't have agree with me, and I am not making an argument that I am going to spend 20+ pages arguing about.

Even worst is this statement. Tell me, is it ridiculous to say that when we mix certain existing elements in nature, they form amino acids? Why or why not?

Is it your contention to silence my opinion? That is what this was, my opinion. Am I now not entitled to it? Am I not suppose to express it?

You don't have to share my opinion, I never stated I was trying to convince anyone of anything. It is just my opinion.

You are aware that scientific method follows a methodology, and evolution, in no way, is exempt. If you want to successfully attack how experiments are performed, you need to give a concrete example instead of pulling stuff from thin air.

I was not attempting to do anything other than state my opinion. It is you who are baiting me to argue with you. Whether it is because you have nothing better to do or a bone to pick, I don't know. At this point I don't really care.

I stated an opinion that YECs who do want to argue the fact of laboratory experiments, could use. If the simple fact of different conditions and environments is beyond understanding, then fine.

You seem more bent on wanting to argue with anyone who thinks and believes differently than you. I am just not interesting in stirring up more and more hatred. You will have to have this argument with yourself. Shalom.

 

[shernren]

Oh, something that just came to mind. Plural of supernova = supernovae, not supernovas. (Geek moment over. Resume discussion at will. XD)

 

[mindlight]

People seem quite polarised on this discussion. I take it that it is an American thing to see the two main positions in terms of enemy camps rather than fellow explorers looking for the same essential truths about the universe. I realise that the culture wars in your country have hotted up recently and that the nation is also quite politically divided.

Some interesting responses. I would like to pick up on two themes.

1) That there is no link between the acceptance of a theory that is meant to pervade the formation of all life and the attempt to duplicate that theory in practice.

2) That the ability to explain such phenomena as supernovae does not mean you can duplicate a supernova in your bedroom.

Regarding 1)

I think this argument lacks integrity. If macro evolution is indeed so obvious why cannot people duplicate it even on the smallest scale. The claim made is that, in some primeval pond, life arose spontanteously. Well prove it by duplicating the conditions. Since you cannot, you make me doubt that your theory has any link with reality at all.

PS: microevolutionary adaptations to environment are not what is being discussed here but the ability of evolutionary processes to create life in the first place

Regarding 2)

This is a matter of scale. A supernova would not fit into my bedroom and I do not want to wake the baby in the next room! But when talking about the first small steps to a living cell we are not talking on this scale so we are not comparing like with like. If we could create a fusion power plant on earth (and we are trying) we would not build it on a stellar scale so why must we instantly jump to the stellar level to examine fusion.

 

[random_guy]

People seem quite polarised on this discussion. I take it that it is an American thing to see the two main positions in terms of enemy camps rather than fellow explorers looking for the same essential truths about the universe. I realise that the culture wars in your country have hotted up recently and that the nation is also quite politically divided.

Some interesting responses. I would like to pick up on two themes.

1) That there is no link between the acceptance of a theory that is meant to pervade the formation of all life and the attempt to duplicate that theory in practice.

2) That the ability to explain such phenomena as supernovae does not mean you can duplicate a supernova in your bedroom.

Regarding 1)

I think this argument lacks integrity. If macro evolution is indeed so obvious why cannot people duplicate it even on the smallest scale. The claim made is that, in some primeval pond, life arose spontanteously. Well prove it by duplicating the conditions. Since you cannot, you make me doubt that your theory has any link with reality at all.

PS: microevolutionary adaptations to environment are not what is being discussed here but the ability of evolutionary processes to create life in the first place

The problem is two fold. First, your argument is scientifically incorrect. For example, what you call macroevolution, scientists call speciation, which we can create in the lab. Second, abiogensis, simple life forming from chemical reactions, has nothing to do with evolution.

The second part of the problem is because we can't do something yet, doesn't mean it will hold forever. Remember, according to abiogenesis, it took 2-3 billion years before life arose on Earth. On top of that, all the oceans were one big laboratory. We've only begun working in this field for 50 years, or less than 10^-6 percent of the span of Earth's age.

Regarding 2)

This is a matter of scale. A supernova would not fit into my bedroom and I do not want to wake the baby in the next room! But when talking about the first small steps to a living cell we are not talking on this scale so we are not comparing like with like. If we could create a fusion power plant on earth (and we are trying) we would not build it on a stellar scale so why must we instantly jump to the stellar level to examine fusion.

Again, why can't we create a baby from scratch? If we understand how babies are made, it should be simple to do, but we can't yet. Does this mean that reproduction theory is wrong and we should teach storkism?

Again, because we can't reproduce the exact process doesn't mean we can't theorize about it.

 

[Jig]

And if He says that He did it by setting certain natural processes in motion, how would you react?

The same way you'd react if He said he created it all in 6 days.

 

[gluadys]

Some interesting responses. I would like to pick up on two themes.

1) That there is no link between the acceptance of a theory that is meant to pervade the formation of all life and the attempt to duplicate that theory in practice.


Regarding 1)

I think this argument lacks integrity. If macro evolution is indeed so obvious why cannot people duplicate it even on the smallest scale. The claim made is that, in some primeval pond, life arose spontanteously. Well prove it by duplicating the conditions. Since you cannot, you make me doubt that your theory has any link with reality at all.

PS: microevolutionary adaptations to environment are not what is being discussed here but the ability of evolutionary processes to create life in the first place.

I was going to go back to the OP, but since you have nicely summarized here its main errors, I will start here.

1. What do you mean by macroevolution "on the smallest scale". The smallest scale I can think of is the species. And speciation has been created under laboratory conditions as well as observed in nature. In one famous experiment with sunflowers, a laboratory experiment duplicated an actual speciation which had first occurred in nature. Browse for 'heliocanthus anomalous' for details.

2. Scientists are actively working out the conditions in which life arose on earth (there are more possibilities than the warm little pond!). And they are actively working on what could happen chemically in those conditions that could have created life. For more information check out 'RNA world' 'proto-cells' and 'hypercycles'. One laboratory has recreated a virus from scratch.

So I would be careful using this argument. You are likely to be caught with a god-in-the-gaps argument as the gap is rapidly closing.

3. Whether or not scientist succeed in finding a natural pathway for life to originate on earth does not matter one way or another to the theory of evolution, since the theory of evolution is not about the origin of life, but about the origin of species. In short it is about the diversification of life after it originated. Diversification happens even if supernatural action is required to create life in the first place. Displacing the focus from the diversification of life to the origin of life is a way of avoiding the theory of evolution.

Hence your PS is entirely off base. Evolutionary adapatations to the environment and how this leads to new species is exactly what evolution is about. Evolutionary processes do not create life in the first place.

Scientists are looking for natural processes that may have been involved in the origin of life, but that field of study is abiogenesis, not evolution. And it is more about chemical than biological processes. Only when the chemistry has become both complex enough and stable enough to sustain biological processes do you get evolution.

 

[jackaroo]

What is the opposite of evolution? Extinction. Go to a zoo and look at the signs. Does any of them say: NEW SPECIES. NO! Zoos, reports, magazines and medias only report how endangered animals are, not how animals evolved to another species. Tell that to your teacher, see how he or she responds.

 

[ebia]

What is the opposite of evolution? Extinction. Go to a zoo and look at the signs. Does any of them say: NEW SPECIES. NO! Zoos, reports, magazines and medias only report how endangered animals are, not how animals evolved to another species. Tell that to your teacher, see how he or she responds.

Probably have a good laugh.

 

[shernren]

What is the opposite of evolution? Extinction. Go to a zoo and look at the signs. Does any of them say: NEW SPECIES. NO! Zoos, reports, magazines and medias only report how endangered animals are, not how animals evolved to another species. Tell that to your teacher, see how he or she responds.

Even creationists acknowledge that speciation occurs.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Why, for the billionth time, do people still equate abiogenesis with evolution.

Because it more or less implies it.

The study of evolution would not be complete without some contemplation of the origins of the process. The theory of evolution itself does not address abiogenesis, but the branch of science that stems from it must eventually must. Could I study sociology without at some point looking at history?

Why are the evolutionists here so adamant about the non connection, anyway?

 

[KerrMetric]

Because it more or less implies it.

The study of evolution would not be complete without some contemplation of the origins of the process. The theory of evolution itself does not address abiogenesis, but the branch of science that stems from it must eventually must. Could I study sociology without at some point looking at history?

Why are the evolutionists here so adamant about the non connection, anyway?

No it does not and it is dishonest to claim this. Evolution people are adamant because it is intellectual dishonesty to link them. One thing that always separates the two sides in this debate is intellectual honesty it seems, and capability I might add.

 

[mindlight]

The problem is two fold. First, your argument is scientifically incorrect. For example, what you call macroevolution, scientists call speciation, which we can create in the lab. Second, abiogensis, simple life forming from chemical reactions, has nothing to do with evolution.

The second part of the problem is because we can't do something yet, doesn't mean it will hold forever. Remember, according to abiogenesis, it took 2-3 billion years before life arose on Earth. On top of that, all the oceans were one big laboratory. We've only begun working in this field for 50 years, or less than 10^-6 percent of the span of Earth's age.

Again, why can't we create a baby from scratch? If we understand how babies are made, it should be simple to do, but we can't yet. Does this mean that reproduction theory is wrong and we should teach storkism?

Again, because we can't reproduce the exact process doesn't mean we can't theorize about it.

I apologise if I have mixed two separate theories in my postings.

Abiogenesis does indeed seem to be a distinct hypothesis to that of evolution:

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

The reason I confused them in my mind is that the people who I know who argue evolution imply that this is a natural process governed by chance. Improvements in life are thus spontaneous and accidental changes that stick because they work. These same people will argue he same about the ultimate origin of life

I do not think I am looking at mere speciation here however.

Given the above I feel the need to reclarify my argument.

If controlled deliberate abiogenesis seems improbable, even impossible as not one living cell has ever been generated then why should I believe that evolutionary jumps have occurred spontaneously and accidentally either. If these processes cannot be duplicated even in a deliberate manner why should I believe they explain how life has apparently developed and adapted to our world over the years.

We will probably be able to duplicate the conditions in the womb one day such that artificial wombs will be possible. The length of time a child survives outside the womb is already increasing with improved understanding. This should have implications for abortion law.
At the moment as with our study of origins we are seeking to understand the way God designed a process. We do not have the knowledge or intelligence to actually duplicate that process. I have no problem with people theorising - what I despise is those who jargonise their professions to preserve their expert status, but who never admit the basic truth that actually we (the human race) know little and can duplicate little or nothing meaningful of the processes we examine.

Given our limited understanding why are some scientists making such proud claims about the origins of life. On closer investigation these are only theories and speculative ones at that.

 

[mindlight]

I was going to go back to the OP, but since you have nicely summarized here its main errors, I will start here.

1. What do you mean by macroevolution "on the smallest scale". The smallest scale I can think of is the species. And speciation has been created under laboratory conditions as well as observed in nature. In one famous experiment with sunflowers, a laboratory experiment duplicated an actual speciation which had first occurred in nature. Browse for 'heliocanthus anomalous' for details.

2. Scientists are actively working out the conditions in which life arose on earth (there are more possibilities than the warm little pond!). And they are actively working on what could happen chemically in those conditions that could have created life. For more information check out 'RNA world' 'proto-cells' and 'hypercycles'. One laboratory has recreated a virus from scratch.

So I would be careful using this argument. You are likely to be caught with a god-in-the-gaps argument as the gap is rapidly closing.

3. Whether or not scientist succeed in finding a natural pathway for life to originate on earth does not matter one way or another to the theory of evolution, since the theory of evolution is not about the origin of life, but about the origin of species. In short it is about the diversification of life after it originated. Diversification happens even if supernatural action is required to create life in the first place. Displacing the focus from the diversification of life to the origin of life is a way of avoiding the theory of evolution.

Hence your PS is entirely off base. Evolutionary adapatations to the environment and how this leads to new species is exactly what evolution is about. Evolutionary processes do not create life in the first place.

Scientists are looking for natural processes that may have been involved in the origin of life, but that field of study is abiogenesis, not evolution. And it is more about chemical than biological processes. Only when the chemistry has become both complex enough and stable enough to sustain biological processes do you get evolution.

I take it you mean Helianthus anomalus. A close friend who is a GM research scientist (and who does not share my creationism) has told me that she can make flowers tall or small, change their colours , the shape of their petals by switching on some genes and switching others off. This is a complex business even though we are talking about only plants but yes these things are possible with understanding of how these things work. Thus an intelligent person with knowledge of how these work can change the appearance of a sunflower. You can combine traits of one flower with another. If you take a siamese cat and a persian you'd get a hybrid of two distinct types of cat also. But you cannot breed a cat with a dog. This kind of mixing is not what is being talked about here. There are natural limits - some changes cannot occur with out severe impairment. The pattern of a dog cannot be mixed with the pattern of a cat for instance to produce a new pattern.

A virus is not a cell. In the end if scientists can duplicate the conditions in which life first arose then I suppose it would affirm the conviction that an intelligent mind can create design life from the "dust of the earth". Given the levels of difficulty in duplicating the conditions in the laboratory even with all the deliberate thought going on, that would imply that scientists should show more humility when suggesting they have a handle on the ways in which life arose and then how they developed.

That they have not should mean they do not speak so definitely about things which are actually speculative theories and models.

 

[KerrMetric]

The reason I confused them in my mind is that the people who I know who argue evolution imply that this is a natural process governed by chance.

No one who understands evolutionary theory says this.

If controlled deliberate abiogenesis seems improbable, even impossible as not one living cell has ever been generated then why should I believe that evolutionary jumps have occurred spontaneously and accidentally either. If these processes cannot be duplicated even in a deliberate manner why should I believe they explain how life has apparently developed and adapted to our world over the years.

Because the evidence is overwhelming that such a process has happened. You don't have to be an eyewitness or even duplicate the process. You wouldn't expect to see major changes in any short time period. But such processes leave evidence of their occurrence that seems irreconcilable outside of evolution.

We will probably be able to duplicate the conditions in the womb one day such that artificial wombs will be possible. The length of time a child survives outside the womb is already increasing with improved understanding. This should have implications for abortion law.
At the moment as with our study of origins we are seeking to understand the way God designed a process. We do not have the knowledge or intelligence to actually duplicate that process. I have no problem with people theorising - what I despise is those who jargonise their professions to preserve their expert status, but who never admit the basic truth that actually we (the human race) know little and can duplicate little or nothing meaningful of the processes we examine.

Why this obsession with duplication. I cannot duplicate a star or a thunderstorm in a lab - it doesn't mean we cannot follow the physics of these.

 

[random_guy]

I apologise if I have mixed two separate theories in my postings.

Abiogenesis does indeed seem to be a distinct hypothesis to that of evolution:

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

The reason I confused them in my mind is that the people who I know who argue evolution imply that this is a natural process governed by chance. Improvements in life are thus spontaneous and accidental changes that stick because they work. These same people will argue he same about the ultimate origin of life

It's understandable to get those two mixed up. Often times, other people, regardless of what scientists say, try to conflate the two in a better attempt to attack evolution. See DailyBlessing's post right above yours as a good example.

I do not think I am looking at mere speciation here however.

Given the above I feel the need to reclarify my argument.

If controlled deliberate abiogenesis seems improbable, even impossible as not one living cell has ever been generated then why should I believe that evolutionary jumps have occurred spontaneously and accidentally either. If these processes cannot be duplicated even in a deliberate manner why should I believe they explain how life has apparently developed and adapted to our world over the years.

I think part of the problem is this is a very new field, and research is very early. While the earliest life would be simple compared to life now, it's still vastly more complex than the most complex chemical reaction today. I hope that made sence. Currently, we don't even understand a lot about the basics of life. However, it doesn't mean this will always hold.

I understand that people may have problems accepting abiogenesis since even now, there's no solid theory of how it began. However, whether God created the first cell life or whether abiogenesis create the first life has no bearing on evolution. This is a very important point.

We will probably be able to duplicate the conditions in the womb one day such that artificial wombs will be possible. The length of time a child survives outside the womb is already increasing with improved understanding. This should have implications for abortion law.
At the moment as with our study of origins we are seeking to understand the way God designed a process. We do not have the knowledge or intelligence to actually duplicate that process. I have no problem with people theorising - what I despise is those who jargonise their professions to preserve their expert status, but who never admit the basic truth that actually we (the human race) know little and can duplicate little or nothing meaningful of the processes we examine.

Given our limited understanding why are some scientists making such proud claims about the origins of life. On closer investigation these are only theories and speculative ones at that.

We might be able to duplicate the womb, but my point was, we might not be able to duplicate the baby. We know how babies are formed inside of the womb, but we can't create a baby, yet. However, this doesn't invalidate embryology.

Anyway, thanks for clarifying the argument. Sorry if I was patronizing in my first replies. I'll try to be more civil in my replies.

 

[random_guy]

Because it more or less implies it.

The study of evolution would not be complete without some contemplation of the origins of the process. The theory of evolution itself does not address abiogenesis, but the branch of science that stems from it must eventually must. Could I study sociology without at some point looking at history?

Why are the evolutionists here so adamant about the non connection, anyway?

The study of gravity would not be complete without some contemplation of the origins of mass that generates the force. Does this mean that if we don't know where the mass came from, theory of gravity becomes any less correct?

 

[gluadys]

I take it you mean Helianthus anomalus.

Ah, should have run that by the spell-check. You are correct.

A close friend who is a GM research scientist (and who does not share my creationism) has told me that she can make flowers tall or small, change their colours , the shape of their petals by switching on some genes and switching others off. This is a complex business even though we are talking about only plants but yes these things are possible with understanding of how these things work. Thus an intelligent person with knowledge of how these work can change the appearance of a sunflower. You can combine traits of one flower with another.

That is not what I am talking about however. I am talking about reproducing a speciation event in the laboratory and verifying that it was reproduced in the same manner that occurred naturally.

If you take a siamese cat and a persian you'd get a hybrid of two distinct types of cat also. But you cannot breed a cat with a dog. This kind of mixing is not what is being talked about here.

No, and that is predicted by evolution. It would falsify evolution if you could. However, this does not mean that at some point in the past the ancestors of cats and the ancestors of dogs could not interbreed. That is why we speak of common ancestry.

There are natural limits - some changes cannot occur with out severe impairment. The pattern of a dog cannot be mixed with the pattern of a cat for instance to produce a new pattern.

That statement may not stand up in the face of transgenic animals.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/margawati.html
We already have a number of animals containing human genes (one article I saw--I'll try to find the source--mentioned a sheep produced with 10% human cells). And a tomato which has had a fish gene inserted and the glowing rabbit whose genome now includes the photoluminescent gene of a type of jellyfish. I haven't heard of an experiment which mixes cat and dog genetic material, but in light of some of the ones already done, it would seem child's play for today's genetic engineers.

A virus is not a cell.

True, but you have to start small, eh? Not many years ago, this too would have been considered impossible.

That they have not should mean they do not speak so definitely about things which are actually speculative theories and models.

Or that the theories and models are not as speculative as you think.

 

[gluadys]

The reason I confused them in my mind is that the people who I know who argue evolution imply that this is a natural process governed by chance.

A natural process, yes. Governed by chance, no. No one who understands the process of evolution would say it is governed by chance.

That is doubly true of the theistic evolutionists on this forum, for we would all agree that evolution is governed in some way by God.

But even secular evolutionists would not agree that evolution is governed by chance.

 

[DailyBlessings]

The study of gravity would not be complete without some contemplation of the origins of mass that generates the force. Does this mean that if we don't know where the mass came from, theory of gravity becomes any less correct?

I said no such thing about evolution... Just that a study of the phenomenon would eventually lead to questions about how the process originated. I understand that the theory of evolution does not address abiogenesis, my point is that creationists are not crazy for thinking that it might. Especially since evolutionists frequently attack the creationist view of origins in the midst of this debate.

The problem is compounded since this debate is often presented- by both sides- as being between equal entities so to speak. Creationism vs Evolution, etc. If creation describes only origins and evolution describes only the current status of things, then there is no versus involved. But apparently many do not feel this way.