Natural selection v Intelligent design

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jul 7, 2015

Nicholas Deka said:
What is the limit to microevolution given enough time? One tiny change every 10,000 years for a couple billion years seems to make a lot of big changes to me. Where does it stop for you?

Quite; even ignoring speciation seen in the lab and in the wild, if you have a population of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions, and each produces hundreds or thousands of offspring every year (as many eukaryotes do), each with a random complement of mutations, then a lot can happen in 10,000 years... Looked at from this perspective, early evolution was extremely slow, and the 'breakthrough' developments must have been quite improbable. Of course, even a one-in-a-billion chance is near enough certainty, given billions of chances a year over millions of years.

bhsmte · Jul 7, 2015

Givemeareason said:
I think you have just disproven evolution.

Do I get a Nobel prize?

bhsmte · Jul 7, 2015

Givemeareason said:
It threatens the validity of Christianity.

It would depend on how one interprets their Christianity. For some interpretations, anything besides biblical creationism is a threat, but there are other interpretations, where ID, would be ok.

pshun2404 · Jul 7, 2015

On a question and answer forum called Biology Online one poster said

"Lysosome contain enzymes that are used to break down material and get it ready for disposal. All of these enzymes work best at a low pH, reducing the risk that these enzymes will digest the very cell they are contained in should they somehow escape from the lysosome. Keep in mind that the pH of water, from which all life spring from (according to evolution) has a pH of 7. The cell could not house these enzymes without the membrane. The conundrum of getting the enzymes inside of the membrane, or the membrane around the enzymes, or the membrane evolving, then the enzyme getting on the inside, or the enzyme evolving, then the membrane around it, is a very far stretched possibility. This is so far stretched, that it is impossible.

If the enzymes develop before the membrane, the membrane would be broken down by enzymes from the outside. If the membrane evolves before the enzymes, either the membrane is already closed and is consumed by the enzyme or the enzyme develops inside the membrane, at which point would contain water instead of cell fluid. The membrane, at that point, would be consumed from the inside out because of pH."

What do some of you think? This Biologist is peculiar among many in this field in that he/she has stumbled upon one of those dilemmas (sort of paradoxical) that demonstrates the inefficiency of the hypothesis of gradual evolution (which evidence sometimes appears to support)! In other words he/she realizes one did not precede the other in development but both must have become simultaneously (just like functional DNA and the Cell). The enzymes and the membrane in a gradual model negate one another's possibility.

Since the logic is impeccable and the fact undeniable at this point, the only response I anticipate will be an attack (somehow) on the poster (either their character or doubt as to their credentials, which are not discussed). In other words since denial or defeat are not actually viable at this point scientifically, I suspect a default to dismissal (the typical approach of some EBs)....admission and realization are not acceptable, or else they face ridicule or rejection among their peer group, and could be (not will be) red flagged against publishing such an opinion.

Paul

Moral Orel · Jul 7, 2015

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
According to the best model, light (photons) would have appeared during the Lepton Epoch, from 1 second to 3 minutes after the big bang, as a result of electron-positron annihilation, but at this stage the photons immediately interact to produce new electron-positron pairs. In the Photon Epoch (3 minutes to 240,000 years) the energy is mostly photons, but the universe is still opaque, as they quickly interact with other matter. By 240,000 to 300,000 years, atoms have formed, the universe is relatively transparent and light can travel freely. See Big Bang Timeline.

Much more accurate. I have a sort of pop-culture understanding of cosmology, so what I understood was that the universe was mainly plasma until that last bit of time you mentioned. Either way, no light traveling around means the same to me as no light. And the big bang wasn't a flash of light either.

paulm50 · Jul 7, 2015

pshun2404 said:
On a question and answer forum called Biology Online one poster said

"Lysosome contain enzymes that are used to break down material and get it ready for disposal. All of these enzymes work best at a low pH, reducing the risk that these enzymes will digest the very cell they are contained in should they somehow escape from the lysosome. Keep in mind that the pH of water, from which all life spring from (according to evolution) has a pH of 7. The cell could not house these enzymes without the membrane. The conundrum of getting the enzymes inside of the membrane, or the membrane around the enzymes, or the membrane evolving, then the enzyme getting on the inside, or the enzyme evolving, then the membrane around it, is a very far stretched possibility. This is so far stretched, that it is impossible.

If the enzymes develop before the membrane, the membrane would be broken down by enzymes from the outside. If the membrane evolves before the enzymes, either the membrane is already closed and is consumed by the enzyme or the enzyme develops inside the membrane, at which point would contain water instead of cell fluid. The membrane, at that point, would be consumed from the inside out because of pH."

What do some of you think? This Biologist is peculiar among many in this field in that he/she has stumbled upon one of those dilemmas (sort of paradoxical) that demonstrates the inefficiency of the hypothesis of gradual evolution (which evidence sometimes appears to support)! In other words he/she realizes one did not precede the other in development but both must have become simultaneously (just like functional DNA and the Cell). The enzymes and the membrane in a gradual model negate one another's possibility.

Since the logic is impeccable and the fact undeniable at this point, the only response I anticipate will be an attack (somehow) on the poster (either their character or doubt as to their credentials, which are not discussed). In other words since denial or defeat are not actually viable at this point scientifically, I suspect a default to dismissal (the typical approach of some EBs)....admission and realization are not acceptable, or else they face ridicule or rejection among their peer group, and could be (not will be) red flagged against publishing such an opinion.

Paul

Interesting.
Structural Biochemistry/The Evolution of Membranes

So was that the extent of god's work in evolution? Because as evolution proceeds the steps become clearer and clearer. You have found a hole in the "god doesn't exist" and a bigger one in the bible. LOL

stevevw · Jul 7, 2015

pshun2404 said:
On a question and answer forum called Biology Online one poster said

"Lysosome contain enzymes that are used to break down material and get it ready for disposal. All of these enzymes work best at a low pH, reducing the risk that these enzymes will digest the very cell they are contained in should they somehow escape from the lysosome. Keep in mind that the pH of water, from which all life spring from (according to evolution) has a pH of 7. The cell could not house these enzymes without the membrane. The conundrum of getting the enzymes inside of the membrane, or the membrane around the enzymes, or the membrane evolving, then the enzyme getting on the inside, or the enzyme evolving, then the membrane around it, is a very far stretched possibility. This is so far stretched, that it is impossible.

If the enzymes develop before the membrane, the membrane would be broken down by enzymes from the outside. If the membrane evolves before the enzymes, either the membrane is already closed and is consumed by the enzyme or the enzyme develops inside the membrane, at which point would contain water instead of cell fluid. The membrane, at that point, would be consumed from the inside out because of pH."

What do some of you think? This Biologist is peculiar among many in this field in that he/she has stumbled upon one of those dilemmas (sort of paradoxical) that demonstrates the inefficiency of the hypothesis of gradual evolution (which evidence sometimes appears to support)! In other words he/she realizes one did not precede the other in development but both must have become simultaneously (just like functional DNA and the Cell). The enzymes and the membrane in a gradual model negate one another's possibility.

Since the logic is impeccable and the fact undeniable at this point, the only response I anticipate will be an attack (somehow) on the poster (either their character or doubt as to their credentials, which are not discussed). In other words since denial or defeat are not actually viable at this point scientifically, I suspect a default to dismissal (the typical approach of some EBs)....admission and realization are not acceptable, or else they face ridicule or rejection among their peer group, and could be (not will be) red flagged against publishing such an opinion.

Paul

paulm50 · Jul 7, 2015

Givemeareason said:
It threatens the validity of Christianity.

If Christianity can be threatened by Genesis being wrong. Then it's a very weak religion.

There are far more good and bad reasons to believe in Christianity.

The Good work v All the bad work.

Givemeareason · Jul 7, 2015

paulm50 said:
If Christianity can be threatened by Genesis being wrong. Then it's a very weak religion.

There are far more good and bad reasons to believe in Christianity.

The Good work v All the bad work.

Genesis being less than a satisfying explanation is not the problem. The problem is when certain Christians try to make it so. It makes Christianity look bad.

Givemeareason · Jul 7, 2015

bhsmte said:
It would depend on how one interprets their Christianity. For some interpretations, anything besides biblical creationism is a threat, but there are other interpretations, where ID, would be ok.

Pope Benedict supported ID.

Moral Orel · Jul 7, 2015

pshun2404 said:
On a question and answer forum called Biology Online one poster said

"Lysosome contain enzymes that are used to break down material and get it ready for disposal. All of these enzymes work best at a low pH, reducing the risk that these enzymes will digest the very cell they are contained in should they somehow escape from the lysosome. Keep in mind that the pH of water, from which all life spring from (according to evolution) has a pH of 7. The cell could not house these enzymes without the membrane. The conundrum of getting the enzymes inside of the membrane, or the membrane around the enzymes, or the membrane evolving, then the enzyme getting on the inside, or the enzyme evolving, then the membrane around it, is a very far stretched possibility. This is so far stretched, that it is impossible.

If the enzymes develop before the membrane, the membrane would be broken down by enzymes from the outside. If the membrane evolves before the enzymes, either the membrane is already closed and is consumed by the enzyme or the enzyme develops inside the membrane, at which point would contain water instead of cell fluid. The membrane, at that point, would be consumed from the inside out because of pH."

What do some of you think? This Biologist is peculiar among many in this field in that he/she has stumbled upon one of those dilemmas (sort of paradoxical) that demonstrates the inefficiency of the hypothesis of gradual evolution (which evidence sometimes appears to support)! In other words he/she realizes one did not precede the other in development but both must have become simultaneously (just like functional DNA and the Cell). The enzymes and the membrane in a gradual model negate one another's possibility.

Since the logic is impeccable and the fact undeniable at this point, the only response I anticipate will be an attack (somehow) on the poster (either their character or doubt as to their credentials, which are not discussed). In other words since denial or defeat are not actually viable at this point scientifically, I suspect a default to dismissal (the typical approach of some EBs)....admission and realization are not acceptable, or else they face ridicule or rejection among their peer group, and could be (not will be) red flagged against publishing such an opinion.

Paul

Well I guess I could go the route of pointing out that an anonymous source on a web forum doesn't make for a very good citation, but let's say this is all true and accurate for the sake of argument.

This is about abiogenesis, not evolution, which are not the same thing. Even in the case of a god, you can believe that evolution occurred and it just took God to give that first spark of life. So this isn't an argument against evolution.

Secondly, I always have a problem when someone says that if something is really, really improbable, then that means that it is impossible. Improbable, no matter to what degree, does not equal impossible. Put enough monkeys in a room with typewriters, and give them enough time, and eventually they'll produce Shakespeare.

But yeah, I think you should also cite a source that we can all look at instead of this, which is essentially hearsay.

lesliedellow · Jul 7, 2015

Givemeareason said:
I disagree because I'D is used to mislead people who then mislead others and then the attacks on science begin....

It all depends what you mean by ID. ID Michael Behe style is an attempt to make God part of a scientific theory. ID Owen Gingerich style is a legitimate philosophical interpretation put upon the scientific facts. Atheists do the same thing, but not all of them want to acknowledge the fact.

paulm50 · Jul 7, 2015

Givemeareason said:
Genesis being less than a satisfying explanation is not the problem. The problem is when certain Christians try to make it so. It makes Christianity look bad.

I find it amusing when fundamentalists try to find gaps in the Evolution theory. pshun2404 for instance is now debating gaps in the beginning of the Evolution process. When according to Genesis, there was nothing there at all. Until Man arrived with sons able to farm the land.

THis discredits the good teachings, as a message on how to live, that are in the bible. There's much in the bible that lends itself to waging war, killing people we should be forgiving and accepting.

paulm50 · Jul 7, 2015

lesliedellow said:
It all depends what you mean by ID. ID Michael Behe style is an attempt to make God part of a scientific theory. ID Owen Gingerich style is a legitimate philosophical interpretation put upon the scientific facts. Atheists do the same thing, but not all of them want to acknowledge the fact.

If he can establish god was part of this process science found. He discredits what was written in the Genesis. Which as I say is five days after the creation of Earth, people who had sons who were farmed arrived. No mention whatsoever of anything like a single cell being. And once people say it was god telling them a simple version, they're making excuses.

Givemeareason · Jul 7, 2015

lesliedellow said:
It all depends what you mean by ID. ID Michael Behe style is an attempt to make God part of a scientific theory. ID Owen Gingerich style is a legitimate philosophical interpretation put upon the scientific facts. Atheists do the same thing, but not all of them want to acknowledge the fact.

Anytime an attempt is made to make something part of any theory it leads to little more than fantasy. I just pointed to the example earlier of how an author wanted to claim aliens had visited earth in ancient times by arguing humans weren't capable of building the pyramids or constructing the enormous hieroglyphs in the Andes mountains. Behe last I heard does the same thing by arguing that complex biological systems are too complex to have evolved. By doing so he then defaults to the position there had to be intelligent design and hence God. That is an invalid argument and if athiests do it they are wrong too.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jul 7, 2015

stevevw said:
... certainly the theory is undergoing some rethinking or more and more are proposing it should. The more we are looking into the finer detail of how evolutionary pathways can be shown in genetics the more it is bringing up problems for Darwinian evolution.

It's certainly true that the theory is under constant revision in its details, and that explicitly Darwinian evolution is no longer centre stage. Darwin had no information on the mechanisms of heredity, so, understandably, the details of his theory were rather speculative - but the principle on which it is based (reproduction with heritable variation and natural selection) is not in dispute. The corrections, refinements, and additions to Darwin's ideas are now known as the 'modern evolutionary synthesis'.

There is also a difficultly in showing how mutations can create new complex functions.

Not so. A number of mechanisms are known by which this can occur; for instance, gene duplication and subsequent mutation is a particularly fecund source of new functionality.

Some say that much of a creatures ability to change is there in the existing genetics or gained through HGT. Some say that mutations mainly have a fitness cost and any small benefits are not great enough to be taken on.

People who say such things are ill-informed.

But as far as what some claim that creatures can evolve new complex functions and features that were never there to begin with that is under question.

Not by people who know what they're talking about.

The question is are some claiming that evolution has more ability than it really does by using something that is limited and giving it more power that it really has. They are using something that is true and then creating a misrepresentation to build their theory. There are number of scientists and papers that are now saying this in one way or another. Some of which I have posted.

Even scientists can say silly things. It's just the argument from incredulity.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jul 7, 2015

Givemeareason said:
It threatens the validity of Christianity.

Really? I thought the essence of Christianity was a matter of faith...

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jul 7, 2015

Nicholas Deka said:
And the big bang wasn't a flash of light either.

Quite; it wasn't an explosion or a 'bang' either... the term was coined disparagingly by Sir Fred Hoyle, a die-hard steady-state supporter, and caught on in the media.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jul 7, 2015

pshun2404 said:
What do some of you think?

I think it's just another mistaken attempt to argue for irreducible complexity.

Since the logic is impeccable and the fact undeniable at this point, the only response I anticipate will be an attack (somehow) on the poster (either their character or doubt as to their credentials, which are not discussed). In other words since denial or defeat are not actually viable at this point scientifically, I suspect a default to dismissal (the typical approach of some EBs)....admission and realization are not acceptable, or else they face ridicule or rejection among their peer group, and could be (not will be) red flagged against publishing such an opinion.

It doesn't matter how impeccable the logic is if the premises are incorrect. The construction of lysosomes is not a mystery - for example, see the section 'Biogenesis of lysosomes' at this link.

pshun2404 · Jul 7, 2015

Nicholas Deka said:
Well I guess I could go the route of pointing out that an anonymous source on a web forum doesn't make for a very good citation, but let's say this is all true and accurate for the sake of argument.

This is about abiogenesis, not evolution, which are not the same thing. Even in the case of a god, you can believe that evolution occurred and it just took God to give that first spark of life. So this isn't an argument against evolution.

Secondly, I always have a problem when someone says that if something is really, really improbable, then that means that it is impossible. Improbable, no matter to what degree, does not equal impossible. Put enough monkeys in a room with typewriters, and give them enough time, and eventually they'll produce Shakespeare.

But yeah, I think you should also cite a source that we can all look at instead of this, which is essentially hearsay.

Yeah I gave the link...but it is true...these acids can certainly exist (as they do in prokaryotes) alone without a membrane but they are hostile to the evolving formation of such a membrane. Their point was far from abiogenesis...it was an enlightenment. One could not evolve in semi evolved states while the other evolved...for one thing a prokaryote would have to first evolve Endoplasmic Reticulum (from which the enveloping membrane is formed) and in over 100 years studying these we have never even seen anything even remotely close to this (even after culturing for 50,000 generations)....this shows that gradual evolution cannot apply here (as with functional DNA and the Cell)...yet they have specific design and purpose....

Natural selection v Intelligent design

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency