Kalaam Cosmological Argument (philosophy of evolution)

[npetreley]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Please, Nick, provide us with a single scientific source which shows that evolution and abiogenesis were at one time the same subject. Failing to produce one, can only mean that your post is nothing but bluster.

There's plenty more where this came from, but you're just going to explain it all away, anyway. Truth doesn't matter to you guys. Prove me wrong. I dare you.


Berkeley University, The Origin of Life on Earth

Major events in the origin and evolution of life will be examined from a chemical perspective, including the formation of the solar system, the first reproducing molecules, the evolution of metabolism, and the search for extra-terrestrial life.

http://mc2.cchem.berkeley.edu/modules/origin/

THE ORIGINS AND EARLY EVOLUTION OF LIFE
University of California, Santa Cruz

http://www.chemistry.ucsc.edu/Projects/origins1.html

UC Berkeley again, Tracking the Course of Evolution, HOW DID IT ALL BEGIN? THE SELF-ASSEMBLY OF ORGANIC MOLECULES AND THE ORIGIN OF CELLULAR LIFE

From Evolution: Investigating the Evidence, Paleontological Society Special Publication Volume 9, 1999. By permission of the Paleontological Society.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/events/deamer1.html

Mathematical Models of the Origin and Evolution of Life (NASA)

http://ic.arc.nasa.gov/ic/projects/ecc/mmoel.html

History of Life, Third Edition. University of California, Davis textbook

http://www-geology.ucdavis.edu/~GEL3/3webpages.html

* Chapter One. The Origin of Life
* Chapter Two. Earth's Earliest Life
* Chapter Three Sex and Nuclei: Eukaryotes
* Chapter Four: The Evolution of Animals
* Chapter Five: Life in a Changing World
* Chapter Six: Extinction
* Chapter Seven: The Early Vertebrates
* Chapter Eight: Leaving the Water. Includes a new section on the role of nitrogen loss in the transition to life in air.
* Chapter Nine: Amphibians and Reptiles
* Chapter Ten: Reptiles and Thermoregulation
* Chapter Eleven: The Triassic Takeover
* Chapter Twelve: Dinosaurs
* Chapter Thirteen: Warm-blooded Dinosaurs?
* Chapter Fourteen: The Evolution of Flight
* Chapter Fifteen: The Origin of Mammals
* Chapter Sixteen: Marine Reptiles
* Chapter Seventeen: Why Flowers Are Beautiful
* Chapter Eighteen: The End of the Dinosaurs
* Chapter Nineteen: Cenozoic Mammals: Guilds and Trends
* Chapter Twenty: Geography and Evolution
* Chapter Twenty-one: Primates
* Chapter Twenty-two: Evolving Toward Humans
* Chapter Twenty-Three: The Ice Age
* Chapter Twenty-Four: Humans and the Ice Age
* Appendix: Invertebrate Paleobiology

The Center for the Study of Evolution and the Origin of Life at UCLA.

http://www.igpp.ucla.edu/cseol/

Evolution and the Origin of Life: Eubacteria and Archaebacteria: the oldest forms of life

http://www.bacteriamuseum.org/niches/evolution/evolution.shtml

As described in this Lecture on the Origin of Life all life originated from a common ancestor (Source: UTDallas). Our other exhibit explains how we can observe mutations in bacteria directly.

Chemical Evolution: Origin Of Life

http://www.deepakpublishing.com/135.html

This book addresses some important open questions in this interdisciplinary field of research. In spite of its broad scope, ranging from the earliest evidence of life on earth to the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, the main focus is on chemical evolution. Once the macromolecules of life were formed, the evolution of the earliest life forms enhanced the importance of chirality. This led to the highly asymmetric environment of the macromolecules of the living cell the hallmark of life itself. The subject of chirality, in particular, is discussed in depth: the status of the weak force as the only true chiral influence is presented. A substantial number of papers review both the theoretical as well as the experimental basis of the origin of biochirality.

A second broad area discussed in detail is the RNA world. Some successes of this hypothesis are highlighted; the hierarchy of previous evolutionary stages leading to the origin of life, such as the pyrophosphate world, are considered. The question is raised whether useful hints may still be inferred from molecular fossils existing in contemporary cells.

Evolution Happens

http://www.evolutionhappens.net/

The theory of evolution is the only explanation for the origin of life that accounts for the fossil, anatomical, molecular (including genetic), behavioral and geological evidence.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by npetreley

There's plenty more where this came from, but you're just going to explain it all away, anyway. Truth doesn't matter to you guys. Prove me wrong. I dare you.

Ok, in answer to Rufus' challenge to "provide us with a single scientific source which shows that evolution and abiogenesis were at one time the same subject. ", your first example is a Berkley U web page:

Major events in the origin and evolution of life will be examined from a chemical perspective, including the formation of the solar system, the first reproducing molecules, the evolution of metabolism, and the search for extra-terrestrial life.(emphasis added)

So is the author the King of Redundancy King or is he describing two different kind of events?

THE ORIGINS AND EARLY EVOLUTION OF LIFE
University of California, Santa Cruz

http://www.chemistry.ucsc.edu/Projects/origins1.html

Wow, there it is again: origins AND evolution. Are you beginning to detect a trend?

UC Berkeley again, Tracking the Course of Evolution, HOW DID IT ALL BEGIN? THE SELF-ASSEMBLY OF ORGANIC MOLECULES AND THE ORIGIN OF CELLULAR LIFE

From Evolution: Investigating the Evidence, Paleontological Society Special Publication Volume 9, 1999. By permission of the Paleontological Society.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/events/deamer1.html

Another example where origins and evolution are discussed together, with the two never tied explicitly or implicitly together.

Mathematical Models of the Origin and Evolution of Life (NASA)

http://ic.arc.nasa.gov/ic/projects/ecc/mmoel.html

The pattern of origin and evolution continues.

History of Life, Third Edition. University of California, Davis textbook

http://www-geology.ucdavis.edu/~GEL3/3webpages.html

The origin of life discussed as part of the HISTORY of life... err....

The Center for the Study of Evolution and the Origin of Life at UCLA.

http://www.igpp.ucla.edu/cseol/

Ha ha! The trend is "reversed" now its Evolution and Origin (instead of Origin and Evolution, a progam that was:

Formally organized in 1985 under the auspices of the University of California Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics

Evolution and the Origin of Life: Eubacteria and Archaebacteria: the oldest forms of life

http://www.bacteriamuseum.org/niches/evolution/evolution.shtml

And the "reversed" trend continues...

Chemical Evolution: Origin Of Life

http://www.deepakpublishing.com/135.html

What's this? "Chemical" Evolution? It has the word Evolution in it, so it must be a subset of the biological theory of evolution right? Wrong.....

The line that gives the game away:

This book addresses some important open questions in this interdisciplinary field of research. (emphasis added)

Evolution Happens

http://www.evolutionhappens.net/

I assume this was thrown in because this particular FAQ uses the words "...explanation for the origin of life..." How this choice of words changes the fundamentals of the theory of evolution is beyond me.

I think Rufus was looking for something from the past. You know as well as we do that the theory of evolution does not encompass abiogenesis now. These modern quotes from textbooks and web-sources of the history of life don't change that one bit. Can you show an old journal, maybe from the '40's that shows exactly how it is that the evolutionary biologists at the time thought that the origin of the first life was their domain of study?

Did you miss the quote from Darwin that was on one of the pages you quoted? "It is as absurd to think about the origin of life as it is to think about the origin of matter."

Furthermore, apart from the fact that the two subjects were never married, no divorce is taking place. Abiogenesis was once no more than pure speculation on the part of a few scientists. Now many biochemists and biologists are confidently working on developing the abiogenetic research program. If anything, there is a growing acceptance of this idea, not a growing separation from it.

Try again, Nick - maybe this time get some compelling information.

And, being the master of the "16%" quote (and other famous examples), I would encourage you to take the log out of your own eye before accusing others about not caring about the "truth."

 

[chickenman]

Jerry did what I couldn't be bothered to do

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by chickenman
Jerry did what I couldn't be bothered to do

Having no life helps.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by npetreley

So therefore you have to figure out how the first replicating life occurred, and how it survived its environment long enough to establish itself and proceed to evolve. Of course, even evolutionists are beginning to realize that the chance of this happening is basically nil, so many of them have divorced themselves from the problem. They call that abiogenesis, and simply pretend it's a problem they don't have to deal with. All they care about is whether they can cook up in their imagination ways life could have evolved after that impossible event.

Hmm.

That argument sounds a lot like the one where, when reviewing the evolution of flight, evolutionists realized that the chances of an object in motion simply changing direction were basically nil, so many of them have divorced themselves from the problem. They call it gravity, and simply pretend it's a problem they don't have to deal with.

Yeah, you've got a good point. It's really frustrating how scientists don't seem to realize that all of the theories whose incompatibility with creationism is direct enough that Nick can see it, without having to have the indirect effects explained to him, are a *single* theory which is flawed.

 

[RufusAtticus]

I think Rufus was looking for something from the past. You know as well as we do that the theory of evolution does not encompass abiogenesis now. These modern quotes from textbooks and web-sources of the history of life don't change that one bit. Can you show an old journal, maybe from the '40's that shows exactly how it is that the evolutionary biologists at the time thought that the origin of the first life was their domain of study?

Yep. That's what I want. How about it, Nick? Do you got any evidence to support your claim?

 

[Lanakila]

BEHE IS AN EVOLUTIONIST

I don't know where you are getting your information at Ray but it is flawed. I have Darwin's Black Box and the Secondary Title is: The biochemical Challenge to Evolution. Michael Behe is not a Creationist but, a proponent of Intelligent Design. Another words, biochemical machines must have been designed either by God or some higher intelligence.

I am glad I gave you all something else to argue against but, I am afraid I have a life (college, wife, mother of 4 kids) and don't have time to debate every question of it point by point. Thats why I stopped on the other thread, not because I don't have the information to debate it, but I am outnumbered here, and frankly I don't have the time to go over everything point by point. I have other arguments against evolution and I may post them on here from time to time, but may not have the time to defend my argument from every attack. That does not necessarily mean they aren't valid arguments.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Lanakila
I have other arguments against evolution and I may post them on here from time to time, but may not have the time to defend my argument from every attack. That does not necessarily mean they aren't valid arguments.

Of course not. It's the multiple fallacies and errors make them invalid arguments.

 

[Ray K]

Originally posted by Lanakila
BEHE IS AN EVOLUTIONIST

I don't know where you are getting your information at Ray but it is flawed. I have Darwin's Black Box and the Secondary Title is: The biochemical Challenge to Evolution. Michael Behe is not a Creationist but, a proponent of Intelligent Design. Another words, biochemical machines must have been designed either by God or some higher intelligence.

Intelligent Designers typically insert "God" at the beginning and let natural selection take over from there. They reject Genesis as an historical account of history. Do you?

ID'ers believe in an ancient Earth and the timeline of the fossil record. Those that think God had a hand in creating separate species are called "theological evolutionists".

Basically, Intelligent Design is a near-complete capitulation to Darwinian evolution except for a feeble attempt to replace "I don't know" with "God did it"

I am glad I gave you all something else to argue against but, I am afraid I have a life (college, wife, mother of 4 kids) and don't have time to debate every question of it point by point. Thats why I stopped on the other thread, not because I don't have the information to debate it, but I am outnumbered here, and frankly I don't have the time to go over everything point by point. I have other arguments against evolution and I may post them on here from time to time, but may not have the time to defend my argument from every attack. That does not necessarily mean they aren't valid arguments.

LOL.

"I'm going to post my arguments but not defend them. You'll just have to take my word that they are valid"

 

[Lanakila]

I have Behe's book in front of me Ray, your statements are based on ignorance. I haven't read it cover to cover, but it is an argument "against" evolution. You may want to do a little more research on the intelligent design position because you are just proving your ignorance with every statement about it.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Lanakila
I have Behe's book in front of me Ray, your statements are based on ignorance. I haven't read it cover to cover, but it is an argument "against" evolution. You may want to do a little more research on the intelligent design position because you are just proving your ignorance with every statement about it.

Well, Lanakila, when you finish his book, can you tell us on what page he disagrees with universal common descent and descent with modification?

 

[RufusAtticus]

"Professor Coyne’s remarks about a Precambrian fossil hominid are irrelevant since I dispute the mechanism of natural selection, not common descent. I would no more expect to find a fossil hominid out of sequence than he would." -- Behe, here

That is what Ray K is refering to when he called Behe an "evolutionist." IDers run the gambit from hard-core evolution-deniers like Wells, to near-evolutionists like Behe, and to pure-evolutionists like Denton.

 

[randman]

Well then, IDers are definitely the more rational group, as insistence on athiesm is a type of inverted faith lacking logic.

 

[Morat]

as insistence on athiesm is a type of inverted faith lacking logic.

I'll bite. How so (by which I mean "inverted faith". We'll get to what's logical some other time)?

 

[Ray K]

Originally posted by Lanakila
I have Behe's book in front of me Ray, your statements are based on ignorance. I haven't read it cover to cover, but it is an argument "against" evolution. You may want to do a little more research on the intelligent design position because you are just proving your ignorance with every statement about it.

Does Behe believe in an ancient Earth? Yes

Does Behe believe that the fossil record is an accurate respresentation of past life on Earth? Yes

Does Behe believe in common descent? Yes

What Behe does not believe in is that new species evolved without divine intervention. That makes him a "theological evolutionist".

Behe believes that, by using "irreduceable complexity", one can prove that a designer must be involved.

Behe in no way supports the creation account in Genesis. In fact, the entire Intelligent Design movement is based around the acceptance of common descent. This is the "dirty, little secret" they rarely talk about because they do not want to alienate their scientifically-illerate creationist supporters.

 

[Ray K]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
"Professor Coyne’s remarks about a Precambrian fossil hominid are irrelevant since I dispute the mechanism of natural selection, not common descent. I would no more expect to find a fossil hominid out of sequence than he would." -- Behe, here

That is what Ray K is refering to when he called Behe an "evolutionist." IDers run the gambit from hard-core evolution-deniers like Wells, to near-evolutionists like Behe, and to pure-evolutionists like Denton.

Yes, I love it when creationists try to use Behe for support. When they are that misinformed, it's not even a fair fight.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

Wow, there it is again: origins AND evolution. Are you beginning to detect a trend?

Well, Jerry, you finally did it. You crossed the line into the "not worth responding to anymore" category. I doubt if you'll want to get back over to the other side of the line, but you can do that by showing me that truth really does mean something to you, and admit that you're wrong.

The second Berkeley reference is even from a book called Evolution: Investigating the Evidence, Paleontological Society Special Publication Volume 9, 1999. The sample chapter at the link is called, HOW DID IT ALL BEGIN? THE SELF-ASSEMBLY OF ORGANIC MOLECULES AND THE ORIGIN OF CELLULAR LIFE.

But regardless of how any of those materials are worded, the point is that the list includes (among other things) college texts and course materials that obviously consider the origin of life and evolution to be inseparable.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Thank you for considering me not worth responding to. I do not hope to regain the priveledge of being responded to by you.

My objection to your continued assertion that abiogenesis and evolution are inseparable is that the theories and facts of evolution themselves do not depend on how the first life came to be, nor do they address the topic. Obviously, being treated together in a textbook or internet overview does not make them inseperable, it just makes them related. The relationship is that often the unanswered questions that a theory leaves hanging (such as the unanswered questions of the origin of life that evolutionary theory leaves hanging) add to an overall understanding of what the theory itself is all about. They also provide a treatment that is more informative, by brushing on the subjects closest to the theories and facts being discussed.

Now, you have several threads where you have ample opportunity to prove that truthfullness is important to you. I challenge you to do so, but if the fact that you feel I am not worth responding to prevents you, then I will still be appreciative of the fact that you have stopped spamming my posts.