Multiple origins
Tristan Miller
In the Nowhere Man vs. Lilith debate, Lilith wrote:
> all genomes at one time or another originated in a shared ancestral state
> (a single species) which diversified through the action of evolution
Do we actually have any evidence for this assertion? How do we know that
life did not arise independently multiple times? I suppose most of the
so-called "higher order" organisms evolved from a common ancestor, but is
it not conceivable that various branches of bacteria and whatnot came into
being independently of one another, and that any genetic similarity
between them is coincidental?
Regards,
Tristan
--
_
_V.-o Tristan Miller [en,(fr,de,ia)] >< Space is limited
/ |`-' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= <> In a haiku, so it's hard
(7_\\ http://www.nothingisreal.com/ >< To finish what you
Matt Silberstein
<psych...@nothingisreal.com> wrote:
>Greetings.
>
>In the Nowhere Man vs. Lilith debate, Lilith wrote:
>> all genomes at one time or another originated in a shared ancestral state
>> (a single species) which diversified through the action of evolution
>
>Do we actually have any evidence for this assertion?
Lots and lots and lots. In fact, we have multiple lines of evidence
for this.
> How do we know that
>life did not arise independently multiple times?
All life uses DNA. Different parts may well have originated
separately, but there was clearly a joining.
> I suppose most of the
>so-called "higher order" organisms evolved from a common ancestor, but is
>it not conceivable that various branches of bacteria and whatnot came into
>being independently of one another, and that any genetic similarity
>between them is coincidental?
That is one hell of a coincidence. The difference internally between
us "higher order" organisms and those single celled ones is not all
that great. Some organisms even can do both.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do in order to understand.
AC
>
> In the Nowhere Man vs. Lilith debate, Lilith wrote:
>> all genomes at one time or another originated in a shared ancestral state
>> (a single species) which diversified through the action of evolution
>
> Do we actually have any evidence for this assertion? How do we know that
> life did not arise independently multiple times? I suppose most of the
> so-called "higher order" organisms evolved from a common ancestor, but is
> it not conceivable that various branches of bacteria and whatnot came into
> being independently of one another, and that any genetic similarity
> between them is coincidental?
There's nothing, so far as I'm aware, that would have precluded that at the
earliest stages of abiogenesis. You might have had all sorts of
proto-organisms swapping genes much as we see some bacteria doing so today.
At some point, however, any populations that had evolved too biochemically
different would not be able to pull it off, so that, as far as I'm
concerned, common ancestry descends almost (if not quite all the way) to the
bottom rung.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
Tristan Miller
In article <ha1dg0l35o19ppmg3...@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein
wrote:
>>In the Nowhere Man vs. Lilith debate, Lilith wrote:
>>> all genomes at one time or another originated in a shared ancestral
>>> state (a single species) which diversified through the action of
>>> evolution
>>
>>Do we actually have any evidence for this assertion?
>
> Lots and lots and lots. In fact, we have multiple lines of evidence
> for this.
>
>> How do we know that
>>life did not arise independently multiple times?
>
> All life uses DNA. Different parts may well have originated
> separately, but there was clearly a joining.
Are there any other encoding and reproduction mechanisms besides DNA with
which life could be supposed to exist? If not, why is it so unlikely that
DNA could not have arisen multiple times independently?
If scientists discover life on Mars, and it is based on DNA, then would
biologists therefore consider it the most probably hypothesis that life on
Earth and life on Mars had a common origin?
Matt Silberstein
<psych...@nothingisreal.com> wrote:
>Greetings.
>
>In article <ha1dg0l35o19ppmg3...@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein
>wrote:
>>>In the Nowhere Man vs. Lilith debate, Lilith wrote:
>>>> all genomes at one time or another originated in a shared ancestral
>>>> state (a single species) which diversified through the action of
>>>> evolution
>>>
>>>Do we actually have any evidence for this assertion?
>>
>> Lots and lots and lots. In fact, we have multiple lines of evidence
>> for this.
>>
>>> How do we know that
>>>life did not arise independently multiple times?
>>
>> All life uses DNA. Different parts may well have originated
>> separately, but there was clearly a joining.
>
>Are there any other encoding and reproduction mechanisms besides DNA with
>which life could be supposed to exist? If not, why is it so unlikely that
>DNA could not have arisen multiple times independently?
The encoding is fairly arbitrary, any number of other similar systems
could work not to mention the possibility of decidedly different ones.
>If scientists discover life on Mars, and it is based on DNA, then would
>biologists therefore consider it the most probably hypothesis that life on
>Earth and life on Mars had a common origin?
Yep.
AC
Tristan Miller <psych...@nothingisreal.com> wrote:
>
> If scientists discover life on Mars, and it is based on DNA, then would
> biologists therefore consider it the most probably hypothesis that life on
> Earth and life on Mars had a common origin?
If it was RNA and/or DNA (or very close), then I'd say that would make the
likelihood of common origin very high.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
MurphyInOhio
>earliest stages of abiogenesis.
"The earliest stages of abiogenesis"? Wow. That took place on Lollipop Lane in
Never Never Land, right?
Stanley Friesen
>>Are there any other encoding and reproduction mechanisms besides DNA with
>>which life could be supposed to exist? If not, why is it so unlikely that
>>DNA could not have arisen multiple times independently?
>
>The encoding is fairly arbitrary, any number of other similar systems
>could work not to mention the possibility of decidedly different ones.
>
>>If scientists discover life on Mars, and it is based on DNA, then would
>>biologists therefore consider it the most probably hypothesis that life on
>>Earth and life on Mars had a common origin?
>
>Yep.
Actually, only if it were based on DNA *and* used a genetic code
sufficiently similar to ours. DNA is actually a very adaptive variant
of RNA for long-term storage, and is quite likely to evolve on other
planets independently. However, the genetic code itself allows of many
more solutions, and is not likely to be identical, or even nearly so,
except due to common origin.
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
Ernest Major
Miller <psych...@nothingisreal.com> writes
>
>Are there any other encoding and reproduction mechanisms besides DNA with
>which life could be supposed to exist? If not, why is it so unlikely that
>DNA could not have arisen multiple times independently?
There was a Nature paper some years back wherein the authors described a
DNA analogue which incorporated an additional pair of types of base.
Whether or not DNA as the genetic material is universal or nearly so in
the cosmos (assuming extraterrestrial life exists) is not the only
question; the mapping from DNA coding to amino-acid (and the set of
amino-acids used), while not completely random or arbitrary, does not on
the face of it seem to be inescapable either. All terrestrial life for
which the matter has been studied uses one of a set of very similar
mappings.
>
>If scientists discover life on Mars, and it is based on DNA, then would
>biologists therefore consider it the most probably hypothesis that life on
>Earth and life on Mars had a common origin?
>
Depends on various properties of said hypothetical life.
Firstly, the DNA to amino acid mapping (and set of amino-acids used)- if
this is similar it argues for a common origin, it vastly different for
separate origins.
Secondly, whether the same chirality of sugars and amino-acids is used;
if different this argues for separate origins. (If the DNA to amino-acid
mapping was the same, and amino-acid chirality reversed - and tRNA
bindings depend, as seems intuitively likely, on chirality - then people
would be puzzled.)
Thirdly, on whether identifiable homologies in DNA sequences can be
identified. (There's genes that can be used to study the relationships
between Eucaryota, Bacteria and Archaea; if the hypothetical Martian
life had a common origin with terrestrial life one would expect to be
able to identify
Fourthly, on what similarities exist in biochemical pathways, and
cellular ultrastructure.
--
alias Ernest Major
syvanen
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 16:23:26 +0000 (UTC), Tristan Miller
> <psych...@nothingisreal.com> wrote:
>
> >Greetings.
> >
> >In the Nowhere Man vs. Lilith debate, Lilith wrote:
> >> all genomes at one time or another originated in a shared ancestral state
> >> (a single species) which diversified through the action of evolution
> >
> >Do we actually have any evidence for this assertion?
>
> Lots and lots and lots. In fact, we have multiple lines of evidence
> for this.
>
> > How do we know that
> >life did not arise independently multiple times?
>
> All life uses DNA. Different parts may well have originated
> separately, but there was clearly a joining.
Actually, there was probably not ever in the evolution of modern life
a common ancestor. The 'lots and lots of evidence' you cite can be
interpreted in a different way. If you are interested in seeing a
different interpretation, I would refer you to paper 8 at
http://www.vme.net/hgt/.
Mike Syvanen
Glenn
"syvanen" <syv...@ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:fc3e7e23.04072...@posting.google.com...
laymen's terms the evidence of that happening, and the proposed
mechanisms?
david ford
Yes. If one has just a little bit of Magical MegaTime, anything is possible.
Matt Silberstein
For feature X, where X is a "sufficiently basic" feature, do you claim
multiple origins? Or is your point that there were various singular
origins for a variety of things that then joined up? And that there is
no "main trunk", just a tangled joining weave? That is what the intro
to your papers seems to say. If so, that does not contradict what I
meant. I does not change my point to say that feature Y did not arise
directly in the common ancestor but came over much later via
horizontal transfer. That is still a common origin, just not by
"pruned tree" descent (a term I just made up and am willing to
abandon). I understand that from your POV we are all using horribly
sloppy language. That is unfortunate but probably necessary.
BTW, the Notes links don't work.
MurphyInOhio
>the
>> >earliest stages of abiogenesis.
>> >aaronclausen.aberni
>>
>> "The earliest stages of abiogenesis"? Wow. That took place on Lollipop Lane
>in Never Never Land, right?
>Yes. If one has just a little bit of Magical MegaTime, anything is possible.
>dford3
Notice, too: the other believers in evolution realized that Aaron "stepped in
it" in urging Spontaneous Generation, which they like to keep well-closeted.
Shhh...don't say any further and maybe the topic will die down.
Matt Silberstein
Glenn
Matt Silberstein
<glenns...@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
You can take it as you like you syphilitic idiot.
Glenn
syvanen
It happens and the proposed mechanisms are well established. I would
be willing to show anyone genuinely intertested the relevant
references but not to someone like you who is so willing to indulge in
personal insults.
Mike syvanen
R.Schenck
> Greetings.
>
> In article <ha1dg0l35o19ppmg3...@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein
> wrote:
> >>In the Nowhere Man vs. Lilith debate, Lilith wrote:
> >>> all genomes at one time or another originated in a shared ancestral
> >>> state (a single species) which diversified through the action of
> >>> evolution
> >>
> >>Do we actually have any evidence for this assertion?
> >
> > Lots and lots and lots. In fact, we have multiple lines of evidence
> > for this.
> >
> >> How do we know that
> >>life did not arise independently multiple times?
> >
> > All life uses DNA. Different parts may well have originated
> > separately, but there was clearly a joining.
>
> Are there any other encoding and reproduction mechanisms besides DNA with
> which life could be supposed to exist?
[cough\] Cairns-Smith [/cough]
ok, so maybe a solid state genome ain't so likely.
snip
Matt Silberstein
<glenns...@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
No, Glenny, you are the toy. I made a joke, you decide to turn it into
an attack, I replied in Glenn style. I do have you to thank for
showing me that Glenn style, the use of insult as argument, is fun. Of
course it is only fun for me if I use different insults. I am not
limited by my imagination and intelligence to using a tiny set of
words over and over.
Adam Warlock
>
> "Matt Silberstein" <matts2...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:dmvgg0t1eo82vt3cs...@4ax.com...
Snip
> > >> >The hypothesis relies on horizontal gene transfer. Can you put in
> > >> >laymen's terms the evidence of that happening, and the proposed
> > >> >mechanisms?
> > >>
> > >> Paper 8 at http://www.vme.net/hgt/. ;-)
> > >>
> > >I take that to mean that *you* can't.
> >
> > You can take it as you like you syphilitic idiot.
> >
> Mommy take all your toys away again?
Matt provided a reference and a smile, Glenn, and you decided to be
obnoxious. Did you accomplish anything constructive today? Do you have a
job, Glenn? You seem to spend a lot of time in talk.origins for no good
purpose whatsoever. That's very sad. It continues to affirm my hypothesis
about you. But you wouldn't harbor so much self hate if you could actually
channel your energies into something positive. You should consider that,
and seek professional help. You are seriously disturbed.
david ford
Science is on the side of the fact of spontaneous generation, and I'm
*not* afraid of saying it.
I tell this to all IDiots: simply collect dirt and look in the box.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407281853.53226b90%40posting.google.com
Don't be like those individuals that refused to look into Galileo's
telescope. Conduct the experiment. See for yourself that spontaneous
generation, like evolution, is an observed scientific *fact* and real.
Matt Silberstein
David, when did you decide that dishonesty and distorting your
opponents position was a good way to spread the Good News?
John Thompson
DNA using the same genetic code would be very strong evidence of
common origin, and at the other end a completely different genetic
chemistry would be strong evidence against it. But I think there are a
lot of intermediate cases that would be much harder to decide.
Possible examples:
Same DNA chemistry. Mostly, but not completely, the same amino acids.
A genetic code with considerable overlap, but much less that among the
different variants on earth.
DNA with uracil.
DNA with a different set of bases.
DNA with an additional base pair and a genetic code using 2 letter (36
combinations) codons.
DNA with the same bases and genetic code but a different sugar in the
backbone.
Etc.
The problem in the intermediate cases it that with only 2 examples it
could be very difficult to determine if similarities were due to
common origin, inherent chemical limitions on what works, or
coincidence. I understand the same problem occurs in paleontology with
very small sample sets. E.g. we have 2 fossils with many similarities
but a few clear differences. The fossils could be:
Same species with differences due to:
Individual differences
Different ages
Different sexes
Disease or some other abnormal condition in one
Different but related species
Only when we have enough samples to get some clear patterns can we
feel confident about knowing where an individual sample point falls.
John
AC
I think it comes quite naturally to David. Reference his BlindWatchmaker
Hypothesis nonsense, which is nothing more than a strawman of methodological
naturalism.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
Frank J
> Greetings.
>
> In the Nowhere Man vs. Lilith debate, Lilith wrote:
> > all genomes at one time or another originated in a shared ancestral state
> > (a single species) which diversified through the action of evolution
>
> life did not arise independently multiple times? I suppose most of the
> so-called "higher order" organisms evolved from a common ancestor, but is
> it not conceivable that various branches of bacteria and whatnot came into
> being independently of one another, and that any genetic similarity
> between them is coincidental?
>
> Tristan
The alternative hypothesis I have heard most is that archaebacteria
and eubacteria may have originated by independently. Even if that is
not likely, as other replies noted, the horizontal transfer and
endosymbiosis that followed further complicates the "tree." But those
processes are not abiogenesis (life from non-life).
The point most worth making to those learning evolution is that these
are questions that are debated openly and honestly among scientists,
who also admit that there is not yet a theory of abiogenesis. But that
doesn't stop evolution misrepresenters from:
1. Defining common descent narrowly to mean only one common ancestor,
in order to pretend that real scientists such as Carl Woese reject
"common descent."
2. Coupling this with other assorted incredulity arguments (Cambrian
explosion, "where are the transitionals") to suggest (without ever
stating it) that abiogenesis may be frequent and possibly recent.
3. Not correcting the audience when it wrongly infers that many
scientists doubt the common ancestry of humans and other species.
david ford
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 Matt Silberstein <matts2...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
What is the position/claim that you think I should be attempting to
attack, instead of the strawman you claim I do attack?
david ford
If dishonesty and distortion of opponents' positions is needed to
spread the Good News that science has made unnecessary invocation of
the God hypothesis, i.e. the Good News that science has put God out of
a job, then so be it. There's nothing "wrong" with dishonesty or
lying, or with anything else, for that matter. That "thou shalt not
lie" commandment came from a *non-existent* God. This much has been
proven through *science,* if science has proven anything.
AC
Why not look at your own quote mines, rhetoric and fallacies? There seems
plenty to attack there. For that matter, why do you need to attack
anything?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
AC
Science hasn't done any of these things. Science has not, cannot and never
will disprove the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient being. Why would
you think otherwise?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
Glenn
I didn't say it didn't happen. But you claim here that the real
mechanisms that allow this transfer,
in ancient organisms, is well established. If I misunderstand, and you
simply use this transfer as
a black box, then say so.
>I would
> be willing to show anyone genuinely intertested the relevant
> references but not to someone like you who is so willing to indulge in
> personal insults.
>
What effect would that have on these references, and in your layman's
explanation?
Chris Krolczyk
> David, when did you decide that dishonesty and distorting your
> opponents position was a good way to spread the Good News?
Dunno. When he first started posting to Usenet, perhaps?
-Chris Krolczyk
Mark K. Bilbo
<itdig0p2c2bkfkdk1...@4ax.com> we saw our hero Matt
Silberstein <matts2...@ix.netcom.com>:
He has been getting increasingly shrill hasn't he?
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
Mark K. Bilbo
<b1c67abe.04072...@posting.google.com> we saw our hero
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford):
So you're going for full Net Kook status are ya now?
SAM
While the 4 individual nucleic acids, 3-nucleic acids/codons,
start (ATG) and 3 stop codons could be theortically be replaced
by an analogous system, you have to remember that the tRNA and
mRNA have 3-dimensional shapes that work together to build
proteins, some of which are part of the whole replication
and translation processes.
It's like the old Star Trek episode "Devil in the Dark" proposing
the idea of a silicon- rather than carbon-based life form. The
chemistry is so different that the entire biology from the
"low" to "high" forms of life at the top of the feeding chain
must somehow be consistent. A one-off life form without a
successive evolutionary line should not be possible or conceivable.
You can't think about DNA code like binary zeros and ones
all lined up one-by-one on a disk to be read sequentially.
Those who understand networks know that there is header and
trailer information in packets to tell systems where to route
them.
Still, it is not inconceivable that DNA has arisen independently
several times on earth. But, it is easier to believe that when
the first self-replicating molecule (RNA?) came into being, it
would just take over. Just do the math. Millions of years to
create the 1st one. Minutes/hours/days to create the 2nd one.
A little exponential math and voila. I used to do PCR, you have
a smidgen of a sample, add some dATP/dTTP/dGTP/dCTP and some
TAQ polymerase, in 1 hour, you have a million copies.
SAM
>
> John
Mitchell Coffey
ford) wrote:
In the linked post you write:
[Begin]
Merridale, Catherine. 2000. _Night of Stone: Death and
Memory in Twentieth-Century Russia_ (USA: Viking), 402pp.
A paragraph on 89:
The most important spur to atheism, however, was
probably the power of science. In that respect, there was a
link, in terms of inspiration, between the radicalism of
unbelief and Marxism, with its faith in progress and its
"science" of dialectical materialism. Kanatchikov, for
instance, remembered his conversion from religion in terms
of his friend Savinov's demonstration of "scientific"
creation. The atheist worker suggested that anyone who
was skeptical of Darwinian theory, who insisted on
adhering to the church and Genesis, should collect some
earth in a box. "You'll see that without fail worms or little
insects will begin to appear," he continued. "And in the
course of four, five, or maybe even ten thousand years,
man himself will emerge." Kanatchikov was so impressed
with this idea that he used it later when he became a
propagandist, calling it "one of the most convincing
arguments in my debates."^50
[End]
I take it Merridale is quoting Kanatchikov's autobiography. Since
Merridale is a professional historian I suspect the incoherence of the
passage is due to some corruption of her text.
What's being described above, by the way, is Lamarck, not Darwin.
Seeing worms or insects emerge from dirt would falsify Darwinian
theory, even more so if some teleological progression resulting in
humans followed - even allowing a billion years rather than ten
thousand.
Mitchell Coffey
________________________________________________________________
From All Through the Night (1942) -
Nazi Agent:
"You're no democrat! You're like me - a man-of-action!"
Humphrey Bogart (as small-time NY hood, nonetheless anti-Nazi):
"I may not be exactly a model citizen, but I've been a
registered Democrat all my life."
Glenn
"Mitchell Coffey" <mdotcoffeyats...@hunter.news.rcn.net>
wrote in message news:4unjg0lpr6kgdnb3t...@4ax.com...
> Seeing worms or insects emerge from dirt would falsify Darwinian
> theory,
Oh bullshit.
MurphyInOhio
>> it" in urging Spontaneous Generation, which they like to keep well-closeted.
>Science is on the side of the fact of spontaneous generation, and I'm
>*not* afraid of saying it.
>I tell this to all IDiots: simply collect dirt and look in the box.
I've seen the light! I am now convinced that Spontaneous Generation is real.
MurphyInOhio
>> lie" commandment came from a *non-existent* God. This much has been
>> proven through *science,* if science has proven anything.
>Science hasn't done any of these things. Science has not, cannot and never
>will disprove the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient being. Why would
>you think otherwise?
>Aaron
Aaron takes issue with most every evolutionist.
MurphyInOhio
What a blot on anyone's record...to be characterized as a "kook" by the lunatic
fringe.
lanny budd
Hey, thanks for the new sig!
There's nothing "wrong" with dishonesty or lying, or with anything
else, for that matter.
-david ford
Quote mining's a bitch, huh?
Matt Silberstein
What about "descent with modification" confused you?
Von Smith
Care to elaborate, Glenn?
Von Smith
Fortuna nimis dat multis, satis nulli.
Von Smith
Care to elaborate, Glenn?
david ford
[AC]"his [df's] BlindWatchmaker Hypothesis nonsense, which is nothing
more than a strawman of methodological naturalism"
What is the position/claim that you think I should be attempting to
attack (however ineptly), instead of the strawman you repeatedly
allege I do attack?
Stanley Friesen
>Stanley Friesen <sar...@friesen.net> wrote in message news:<3tcfg0dkdqvsm53v5...@4ax.com>...
>> Actually, only if it were based on DNA *and* used a genetic code
>> sufficiently similar to ours. DNA is actually a very adaptive variant
>> of RNA for long-term storage, and is quite likely to evolve on other
>> planets independently. However, the genetic code itself allows of many
>> more solutions, and is not likely to be identical, or even nearly so,
>> except due to common origin.
>
>DNA using the same genetic code would be very strong evidence of
>common origin, and at the other end a completely different genetic
>chemistry would be strong evidence against it. But I think there are a
>lot of intermediate cases that would be much harder to decide.
Certainly.
>
>Possible examples:
>
>Same DNA chemistry. Mostly, but not completely, the same amino acids.
>A genetic code with considerable overlap, but much less than among the
>different variants on earth.
This is actually the most likely case to happen with independent origin,
IMO. Constraints of prebiotic chemistry plus the selective advantages
of DNA over RNA and of a redundant genetic code will conspire to bring
this state about.
>
>DNA with uracil.
Less likely, but possible. Again, the methylation of uracil to thymine
actually provides an advantage for long-term storage - in terms of error
correction. One of the most likely mutations is the spontaneous
conversion of C to U, but since DNA has no U, the repair machinery can
automatically revert all U's back to C.
Also note, methylation is a widespread marking/tagging mechanism, so
co-opting it for this purpose is relatively easy.
[What all of this boils down to is that *all* of the differences between
RNA and DNA are adaptive].
>
>DNA with a different set of bases.
To evaluate this, we need to know what potential bases form
prebiotically, and what base-pairings are possible among them. [Note
DNA will, necessarily, have bases similar to those of the precursor
RNA].
However, I would consider this situation a *strong* case for separate
origins, since the set of bases is likely to be quite stable in any
given lineage.
>
>DNA with an additional base pair and a genetic code using 2 letter (36
>combinations) codons.
I am not sure a distinct base pairing can be added without introducing
an excessive risk of mis-pairing. The chemical distinction that is the
basis of pairing is relatively weak and of limited variation - there are
three potential "contact" sites, each with (effectively) two states.
Most combinations will not produce any pairing, or will not sufficiently
reject incorrect pairings. This is almost certainly why xanthine is not
a standard base in either RNA or DNA, despite being a chemical precursor
of one of the standard bases.
>
>DNA with the same bases and genetic code but a different sugar in the
>backbone.
That would not be DNA. The *definition* of DNA is in the sugar:
deoxyribose. And if the genetic material were not DNA, it would
*certainly* indicate separate origin. [Note, there is some possibility
that some other chemical modification of ribose would produce the same
stabilizing effect as deoxygenation, in which case some non-DNA genetic
material could evolve].
One intermediate case you a life form with only RNA, serving as both
genetic material and as the translation system. This is the ancestral
state here on Earth, and could potentially have survived in some
isolated place (like another planet). But it is *also* almost certainly
the basic state for any protein-based life form, so would also be found
on any planet where life has not yet evolved the more sophisticated
genetic mechanism called DNA.
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
david ford
My quotes and comments don't contain the stronger/ better-formulated
position that you think I should be attempting to attack instead of
the strawman you repeatedly allege I do attack.
> For that matter, why do you need to attack
> anything?
To do so is in my blood.
[AC]"his [df's] BlindWatchmaker Hypothesis nonsense, which is nothing
more than a strawman of methodological naturalism"
What is the position/claim that you think I should be attempting to
attack-- however ineptly-- instead of the strawman you repeatedly
allege I do attack?
When I attacked Gould's panda's "thumb" argument, was I also attacking
a "strawman"?
david ford
My quotes and comments don't contain the stronger/ better-formulated
position that you think I should be attempting to attack instead of
the strawman you repeatedly allege I do attack.
> For that matter, why do you need to attack
> anything?
To do so is in my blood.
[AC]"his [df's] BlindWatchmaker Hypothesis nonsense, which is nothing
more than a strawman of methodological naturalism"
What is the position/claim that you think I should be attempting to
david ford
My quotes and comments don't contain the stronger/ better-formulated
position that you think I should be attempting to attack instead of
the strawman you repeatedly allege I do attack.
> For that matter, why do you need to attack
> anything?
To do so is in my blood.
[AC]"his [df's] BlindWatchmaker Hypothesis nonsense, which is nothing
more than a strawman of methodological naturalism"
What is the position/claim that you think I should be attempting to
John Thomas Grisham
>
> In the Nowhere Man vs. Lilith debate, Lilith wrote:
> > all genomes at one time or another originated in a shared ancestral state
> > (a single species) which diversified through the action of evolution
>
> life did not arise independently multiple times? I suppose most of the
> so-called "higher order" organisms evolved from a common ancestor, but is
> it not conceivable that various branches of bacteria and whatnot came into
> being independently of one another, and that any genetic similarity
> between them is coincidental?
>
> Regards,
> Tristan
If Evolution is to be considered valid, then originally proto-life
would have been a simple and constant ongoing chemical reaction. DNA
would combinate into a form of proto-life for a period of time and it
would die. Trillions of variations must have occurred before the
conception of the first single cell creature, which of course died.
Trillions on trillions on trillions of more variations until a single
cell mutated and copied itself, then they both died. Recombinating a
number of times reaching virtual infinity, a single cell divides and
lives long enough to divide at a geometric pace until it consumed its
nutrient source and then the whole colony died. Eventually,
recombination must have occurred where a single cell creature acquired
reproductive survivability.
As described above, the potential of another form of proto-life to
reach a state of reproductive survivability is practically equal to
infinity squared. It's not impossible, but it's not very likely
either. And even if it did, the most survivalable would have consumed
the less survivable at some point. Even the proto-life has been
consumed and incorporated into living cells through variety and
variation.
JTG 7/30/04
prab...@shamrocksgf.com
Actually, science (logic, to be more specific) HAS shown that omniscience
isn't possible. Koedel's incompleteness theorem basically says that either a
sysem will be internally incomplete or else it'll be inconsistent. So that
there'll be statements along the lines of "The omniscient being will know
that this statement is false." If the omniscient being knows the statement
to be true, then the statement was wrong in what the being knew. If the
being knows it to be false, then the statement was accurate with what it
said and thus it was true. So the omniscient being can't know if the
statement is true or if it's false. Also the being can't know if it knows
everything or if there's another being that knows something that it doesn't
due to recurrsion problems.
Now can science show that NO beings exist that could be called "god?" No,
because nothing can prove that X doesn't exist at all if X is logically
possible. BUT...science (if you take logic to be a subset of science) CAN
prove that some specifically-claimed gods (such as shown above) don't exist.
--
Mike
W hat atheism: a non-prophet organization...
W ould
J enna
D rink?
-------------------------------
Creation Science: an oxymoron actually created by morons...
-------------------------------
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you
do criticize them, you're a mile away, and you have their shoes.
prab...@shamrocksgf.com
> "Glenn" <glenns...@SPAMqwest.net> wrote in message news:<glennsheldon-M3mOc.509$iY6....@news.uswest.net>...
>> "Mitchell Coffey" <mdotcoffeyats...@hunter.news.rcn.net>
>> wrote in message news:4unjg0lpr6kgdnb3t...@4ax.com...
>>
>> > Seeing worms or insects emerge from dirt would falsify Darwinian
>> > theory,
>>
>> Oh bullshit.
> Care to elaborate, Glenn?
Simple. "Seeing worms or insects emerging from dirt" (I'm assuming the
person means "sterile dirt with no life-forms of any kind from which worms
or insects spontanously emerge") would deal with the formation of life and
not the evolution of life. Darwin started with life existing and explained
how it changed and didn't get into what caused the life to exist to begin
with. The emergence of life from non-life is ambeogenesis(sp?) and has
nothing to do with evolution.
Matt Silberstein
wrote:
>In talk.atheism Von Smith <drea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "Glenn" <glenns...@SPAMqwest.net> wrote in message news:<glennsheldon-M3mOc.509$iY6....@news.uswest.net>...
>>> "Mitchell Coffey" <mdotcoffeyats...@hunter.news.rcn.net>
>>> wrote in message news:4unjg0lpr6kgdnb3t...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> > Seeing worms or insects emerge from dirt would falsify Darwinian
>>> > theory,
>>>
>>> Oh bullshit.
>
>> Care to elaborate, Glenn?
>
>Simple. "Seeing worms or insects emerging from dirt" (I'm assuming the
>person means "sterile dirt with no life-forms of any kind from which worms
>or insects spontanously emerge") would deal with the formation of life and
>not the evolution of life. Darwin started with life existing and explained
>how it changed and didn't get into what caused the life to exist to begin
>with. The emergence of life from non-life is ambeogenesis(sp?) and has
>nothing to do with evolution.
That might be his point (rather than the trivial silly notion that
there could be eggs in the dirt) then he is wrong. Neither worms nor
insects are close toe the postulated common ancestor. Darwin's theory
encompassed Common Descent, not just descent with modification and
change via natural selection. If populations suddenly formed while we
watch with no living ancestor this would refute Darwin and our current
ideas of biology.
Earle Jones
drea...@hotmail.com (Von Smith) wrote:
> "Glenn" <glenns...@SPAMqwest.net> wrote in message
> news:<glennsheldon-M3mOc.509$iY6....@news.uswest.net>...
> > "Mitchell Coffey" <mdotcoffeyats...@hunter.news.rcn.net>
> > wrote in message news:4unjg0lpr6kgdnb3t...@4ax.com...
> >
> > > Seeing worms or insects emerge from dirt would falsify Darwinian
> > > theory,
*
I saw some turtles emerge from the sand.
earle
*
Also: The other day I saw a man turn into a drugstore.
--
__
__/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones
syvanen
> Tristan Miller <psych...@nothingisreal.com> wrote in message news:<1284501.d...@ID-187157.News.Individual.NET>...
> > Greetings.
> >
> > In the Nowhere Man vs. Lilith debate, Lilith wrote:
> > > all genomes at one time or another originated in a shared ancestral state
> > > (a single species) which diversified through the action of evolution
> >
> > Do we actually have any evidence for this assertion? How do we know that
> > life did not arise independently multiple times? I suppose most of the
> > so-called "higher order" organisms evolved from a common ancestor, but is
> > it not conceivable that various branches of bacteria and whatnot came into
> > being independently of one another, and that any genetic similarity
> > between them is coincidental?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Tristan
>
> and eubacteria may have originated by independently. Even if that is
> not likely, as other replies noted, the horizontal transfer and
> endosymbiosis that followed further complicates the "tree." But those
> processes are not abiogenesis (life from non-life).
>
> The point most worth making to those learning evolution is that these
> are questions that are debated openly and honestly among scientists,
> who also admit that there is not yet a theory of abiogenesis. But that
> doesn't stop evolution misrepresenters from:
>
> 1. Defining common descent narrowly to mean only one common ancestor,
> in order to pretend that real scientists such as Carl Woese reject
> "common descent."
Most biologists still accept the concept of common descent to mean
that there had to be a last common ancestor. That is not likely the
case. We are witnessing a major change in biological thought.
Mike Syvanen
david ford
Haldane, a Marxist (at least in 1939) who played an important role in
the appearance of the Modern Synthesis, noted that "There were
unperceived events before there were any minds."
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=s0c890946imhfig6q7uq1cid7hhj68ppbs%404ax.com
This has been *demonstrated* by numerous experiments and observations.
It is a scientific fact that the existence of matter preceded the
appearance of mind/intelligence. Just look at any issue of a
peer-reviewed scientific journal. At least one of the articles
therein discusses observations in support of this scientific *fact*.
The observational and experimental evidence for this scientific fact
comes in as a massive onslaught.
The great and mighty Simpson, who single-handedly brought paleontology
into the Modern Synthesis, correctly noted in 1949 that "man is the
result of a purposeless materialistic process that did not have him in
mind."
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407211226.2988d48b%40posting.google.com
The peer-reviewed scientific literature supporting this scientific
*fact* is again truly and spectacularly voluminous. If we were to
print all the peer-reviewed papers in the scientific literature
buttressing Simpson's remark, and our printer proceeded at the pace of
12 pages per minute, it would take at least 18 hours to print out all
the papers.
It would take at least *27* hours to print out all the peer-reviewed
papers in the scientific literature demonstrating the *scientific*
fact that, as Sagan eloquently put it, "THE COSMOS IS ALL THAT IS OR
EVER WAS OR EVER WILL BE."
Sagan and Epicurus
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407201818.54c23af1%40posting.google.com
david ford
I've heard that reality can be a real bitch.
two lines into the body of
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981011235608.19729A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Here is another new sig you can thank me for:
"I would respond with,
What can I do to help-- hold open cage doors?
Point out Baptists that remain to be rounded up?
Drive a train carrying Baptists to their well-deserved cages?"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406261739.60e1f6fd%40posting.google.com
Lilith
> Greetings.
>
> In the Nowhere Man vs. Lilith debate, Lilith wrote:
> > all genomes at one time or another originated in a shared ancestral state
> > (a single species) which diversified through the action of evolution
>
> Do we actually have any evidence for this assertion? How do we know that
> life did not arise independently multiple times? I suppose most of the
> so-called "higher order" organisms evolved from a common ancestor, but is
> it not conceivable that various branches of bacteria and whatnot came into
> being independently of one another, and that any genetic similarity
> between them is coincidental?
Our evidence is in existing organisms. The derived systems in existing
organisms that assemble around RNA and DNA are similar enough that
they do not easily point to multiple origins. If not one individual
ancestor, then there had to be a coalescence into a single ancestral
state.
I can suggest the following paper where the authors suggest possible
early seperate origins of archae and eubacteria as the basis of
existing life on earth.
On the origin of cells: An hypothesis for the evolutionary transitions
from abiotic geochemistry to chemoautotrophic prokaryotes, and from
prokaryotes to nucleated cells. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society of London. 358, 59-85.
(mind the wrap)
http://www.gla.ac.uk/projects/originoflife/html/2001/pdf_files/Martin_&_Russell.pdf
Earle Jones
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
*
Reality is just a crutch for those that can't handle religion.
earle
*
MurphyInOhio
Yogi Berra?
Richard Forrest
Richard Dawkins has written several books explaining how the
apparently designed systems we see in nature are created by natural
selection operating at a genetic level.
So you start with 'The Blind Watchmaker', as you seem to be obsessed
by the book, start with the first argument Dawkings offers, explain
how and why that argument is flawed, and produce the evidence to
support your argument.
Then you go on and address the second argument, and the third, and so
on until you have finished the book.
Then you do the same with 'The Selfish Gene', 'The Extended
Phenotype', 'River out of Eden', and so on until you have refuted all
of Dawkins arguments with evidence.
Once you've finished with Dawkins, there's a whole load of other
evolutionary theorists you can demolish in the same way. I suggest you
start with those who have published in the past 10 years rather than
referring to publications more than 50 years old as is your normal
habit.
Alternatively you could perhaps explain your basic premise and provide
evidence to support it. Your posts are so riddled with clumsy sarcasm
and inconsequential arguments based on the distortion of the meaning
of quotations taken from writers in evolutionary theory that they are
hard to wade through, but it seems that you are proposing that all
scientists should abandon methodological naturalism as a basic premise
because you, David Ford, finds it impossible to argue for ID within
the context of methodological naturalism. If you want to make such a
major change in the nature of scientific investigation, you will need
very strong evidence to back up your claims. Old quotes simply don't
work as evidence.
RF
Stanley Friesen
>Tristan Miller <psych...@nothingisreal.com> wrote in message news:<1284501.d...@ID-187157.News.Individual.NET>...
>> Greetings.
>>
>> In the Nowhere Man vs. Lilith debate, Lilith wrote:
>> > all genomes at one time or another originated in a shared ancestral state
>> > (a single species) which diversified through the action of evolution
>>
>> Do we actually have any evidence for this assertion? How do we know that
>> life did not arise independently multiple times? I suppose most of the
>> so-called "higher order" organisms evolved from a common ancestor, but is
>> it not conceivable that various branches of bacteria and whatnot came into
>> being independently of one another, and that any genetic similarity
>> between them is coincidental?
>
>Our evidence is in existing organisms. The derived systems in existing
>organisms that assemble around RNA and DNA are similar enough that
>they do not easily point to multiple origins. If not one individual
>ancestor, then there had to be a coalescence into a single ancestral
>state.
To some degree I think this discussion has involved a confusion between
the First Cell(s) and the Most Recent Common Ancestor. The evidence you
cite favors a single, or small group of closely similar, MRCA. This in
itself says nothing about whether there was one origin of life, or
multiple, or whether that MRCA had a single ancestral lineage or several
that merged in it.
>
>I can suggest the following paper where the authors suggest possible
>early seperate origins of archae and eubacteria as the basis of
>existing life on earth.
>
>On the origin of cells: An hypothesis for the evolutionary transitions
>from abiotic geochemistry to chemoautotrophic prokaryotes, and from
>prokaryotes to nucleated cells. Philosophical Transactions of the
>Royal Society of London. 358, 59-85.
>
>(mind the wrap)
>
>http://www.gla.ac.uk/projects/originoflife/html/2001/pdf_files/Martin_&_Russell.pdf
Yes, a very interesting paper.
I have one question/concern with their model for the origin of life.
How do life forms which *are* cavities in a mineral deposit *reproduce*?
Fission is not possible - so what preceded it. [I may have missed their
answer, as I only skimmed the paper, due to limited time].
On the origin of eukaryotes, they have independently come to the same
hypothesis I developed some time back.
Frank J
Do you mean that the independent origins of archaebacteria and
eubacteria is gaining support, or are you just referring to the
horizontal transfer/endosymbiosis that muddles the LCA concept?
Notice though, that, in the minds of anti-evolutionists, whenever a
new finding supports conventional wisdom it is always part of the
"conspiracy," but whenever a new finding challenges any part of
conventional wisdom it signals the "imminent collapse" of "Darwinism."
Von Smith
> In talk.atheism Von Smith <drea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > "Glenn" <glenns...@SPAMqwest.net> wrote in message news:<glennsheldon-M3mOc.509$iY6....@news.uswest.net>...
> >> "Mitchell Coffey" <mdotcoffeyats...@hunter.news.rcn.net>
> >> wrote in message news:4unjg0lpr6kgdnb3t...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> > Seeing worms or insects emerge from dirt would falsify Darwinian
> >> > theory,
> >>
> >> Oh bullshit.
>
> > Care to elaborate, Glenn?
>
> Simple. "Seeing worms or insects emerging from dirt" (I'm assuming the
> person means "sterile dirt with no life-forms of any kind from which worms
> or insects spontanously emerge") would deal with the formation of life and
> not the evolution of life. Darwin started with life existing and explained
> how it changed and didn't get into what caused the life to exist to begin
> with. The emergence of life from non-life is ambeogenesis(sp?) and has
> nothing to do with evolution.
But the emergence in one leap of worms from dirt, or barnacle geese
from barnacles, or maggots from rotting meat does have a great deal to
do with current thinking about the origins of those creatures, and
with the current interpretation of the "tree of life", and the
proposed common ancestry of all living things. Obviously, if new
worms are popping out of the dirt all the time, they do not share a
common ancestor with those that popped out of the dirt millions of
years ago.
prab...@shamrocksgf.com
So you just showed that matter, etc. existed before any intelligence. So
that means god doesn't exist and thus intelligent design is a farce. Ok,
thank you and come back again when you have another theory that you want to
self-destroy.
prab...@shamrocksgf.com
Not quite. Darwin says that we should find common ancestors IF the beings
didn't just "pop into existence" but doesn't prohibit such. He assumed that
spontanous generation of more advanced beings doesn't happen (and
what-his-name pretty much proved that doesn't) and then showed how beings
that do exist change from one species to another. There could have been
several common ancestors at the microbal level and also species could have
been (but I doubt it) introduced by aliens but once they're here, they'd
evolve the way that Darwin described. I don't believe that insects and worms
will ever spontanously generate but that's only due to the odds against such
ever happening and not because the ToE says that it's impossible.
> --
> Matt Silberstein
> Do in order to understand.
prab...@shamrocksgf.com
Yes, if they were popping out all the time, that'd cause problems. But it
wouldn't invalidate the ToE altogether. The ToE basically says that,
assuming things do NOT just "pop out", here's how they changed from one
species to another. A single occurence of it happening COULD happen simply
by chance (yeah, right, if the universe lasts for 1 trillion to the
trillionth power years, there might be a chance in a million of it) and that
wouldn't cause problems for the ToE. Now if it happened 30 times a day,
every day, then we'd have to look long and hard at the ToE but it does use
the (very strongly supported) assumption that such ambiogenesis happened
only once or a few times and all other life came from that and simply
explains how that life changed over time. But if a worm DID happen to just
pop out, then the ToE would then be able to explain what would happen to all
the decendants of that worm over time.
John Monrad
posted in article <o0UOc.9519$g_5....@bignews4.bellsouth.net>...
> Yes, if they were popping out all the time, that'd cause problems. But it
> wouldn't invalidate the ToE altogether. The ToE basically says that,
> assuming things do NOT just "pop out", here's how they changed from one
> species to another. A single occurence of it happening COULD happen simply
> by chance (yeah, right, if the universe lasts for 1 trillion to the
> trillionth power years, there might be a chance in a million of it)
[...]
<Pratchett>
Ah, a near certainty, is it?
</Pratchett>
--
John Monrad
david ford
> david ford:
> >> Aaron "stepped in
> >> it" in urging Spontaneous Generation, which they like to keep well-closeted.
>
> >Science is on the side of the fact of spontaneous generation, and I'm
> >*not* afraid of saying it.
> >I tell this to all IDiots: simply collect dirt and look in the box.
>
Score a point for science and rationality! Deduct a point for the
forces of superstition and magic!
Scientific experimentation and observation saves the day! We have
gained another convert for the scientific *fact* of spontaneous
generation!
david ford
No, religion is a crutch for those that can't handle reality.
Only the hardiest of individuals, the greatest that walk the earth,
can handle the shattering crises that regularly intrude upon humans'
existence without seeking solace in a deity that *science* has
*proven* through penetrating observation, rigorous testing, and
faultless experimentation to *not* exist. Materialism is a scientific
fact. Only what is material is real, as conclusively demonstrated by
*science*.
david ford
I defy you to find and present a Dawkins argument that is flawed. All
of Dawkins's arguments in support of the theory of natural selection
are flawless. Dawkins's illustration involving the "weasel" line from
Shakespeare illustrates beautifully the principles involved in
Darwinian natural selection, and demonstrates *conclusively* how it is
exactly that Darwinian natural selection can generate sequences of
nucleotides that code for new organs and new body structures and new
body plans.
Suppose Darwinian natural selection wants to make a Tyrannosaurus rex.
Darwinian natural selection has in its view the Tyrannosaurus rex
nucleotide target sequence. Various sequences of nucleotides are
proposed to the environment, and those nucleotides that are in the
correct location for a Tyrannosaurus rex sequence are retained. Those
nucleotides not in the correct location get shuffled again, and of
those, those that match up with the target sequence in the correct
location are retained. In this manner, the nucleotide genome for the
Tyrannosaurus rex was obtained by Darwinian natural selection.
In a similar manner, Darwinian natural selection had the goal of
producing 40-60+ times genome sequences coding for eyes; the target
sequences were there, and Darwinian natural selection gradually,
step-by-tiny step struggled toward the target sequences.
Any IDiot creationist that brings out the naive question, "How did
totally-blind, mindless-at-every-level processes generate the
meaning-laden sequences of nucleotides that code for all the different
biological structures and body plans and organisms in biology?" needs
to be sat down and informed of the numerous target sequences that
Darwinian natural selection strove to attain and *did* attain.
syvanen
The evidence for LCA is the appearance of universal traits -- genetic
code, DNA structure and enzymology, etc. Those universal traits do
not argue for the presence of a LCA when one realizes that ancient
lineages could have obtained those traits via HGT as opposed to
vertical inheritence from a common ancestor. Once this idea is
accepted then the entire notion of an LCA can be discarded. Life as
we know it today emerged from many lineages that exchanged genes which
led to the biological unities. The argument for the selective
pressure for this process is given in ref 1 in the above web site and
ref 8 presents the larger argument.
>
> Notice though, that, in the minds of anti-evolutionists, whenever a
> new finding supports conventional wisdom it is always part of the
> "conspiracy," but whenever a new finding challenges any part of
> conventional wisdom it signals the "imminent collapse" of "Darwinism."
I know full well; my papers are being cited by the creationists and it
was this realization that led me to TO in the first place. I came
here to sharpen up my arguments against this from getting out of hand.
Mike Syvanen
Glenn
"syvanen" <syv...@ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:fc3e7e23.04073...@posting.google.com...
snip
>Life as
> we know it today emerged from many lineages that exchanged genes which
> led to the biological unities. The argument for the selective
> pressure for this process is given in ref 1 in the above web site and
> ref 8 presents the larger argument.
>
Do you mean your hypothesis of horizontal gene transfer between these
"many lineages"?
How can you tell. What are some of the known characteristics of these
"many lineages"?
All you need to do is identify these "many lineages", and apply a
mechanism known to them.
Otherwise, your argument rests on a black box.
Adam Warlock
How would *you* do this?
> Otherwise, your argument rests on a black box.
Why is that, Glenn?
Frank J
> murphy...@wmconnect.com (MurphyInOhio) wrote in message news:<murphy-20040728225...@mb-m28.wmconnect.com>...
> > >> >There's nothing, so far as I'm aware, that would
> > >> >have precluded that at the earliest stages of abiogenesis.
> > >> >aaronclausen.aberni
> > >>
> > >> "The earliest stages of abiogenesis"? Wow. That took place
> > >> on Lollipop Lane in Never Never Land, right?
> > >> MurphyInOhio
> > >
> > > Yes. If one has just a little bit of Magical MegaTime,
> > > anything is possible.
> > > dford3
> >
> > Notice, too: the other believers in evolution realized that Aaron "stepped in
> > it" in urging Spontaneous Generation, which they like to keep well-closeted.
> > Shhh...don't say any further and maybe the topic will die down.
>
> Science is on the side of the fact of spontaneous generation, and I'm
> *not* afraid of saying it.
That sentence must give William Dembski goose bumps. Alas:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB000.html
> I tell this to all IDiots: simply collect dirt and look in the box.
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407281853.53226b90%40posting.google.com
At the risk of paraphrasing Archimedes, give me a suitable planet with
millions of cubic miles of raw material, no organisms to compete for
resources, and a few million years to "look in the box."
J McCoy
It's too bad, then, that evolution is a crutch for those who can't
handle reality. The shattering crisis of the fact that all supposed
hominid discoveries were actually fossils that were contemporary with
human remains, thus rendering the evolution notion powerless sent
shock waves of fear into the cowering evolutionists. Hence, scientific
testing, supposed testing, rendered the frog to prince myth a fantasy.
Seeking solace in himself, the evolutionist has failed, unable to
prove evolution as true. He seeks to take revenge by fighting to
censor creationism. His views cannot compete against the truth.
Materialism has shown that explosions to not create order.
Materialism has shown that complex objects cannot be created by
random events. Even man, himself, cannot create life yet, yet man is
not a random event, but a complex intelligent being. Since we can
prove over and over again that complex intelligent beings can
construct complex objects like computers, we can prove that
intelligence can do it. But conversely, we cannot prove that random
events can create complex objects like the human mind. Thus, the idea
that intelligence created human beings is given an advantage over the
idea that random events had create human beings. Thus, the balance is
tilted in the favor of God, and this proven by materialism.
Once again, I ask, where is the observation that proves that random
events could create life?
By the way, amino acids generated in laboratories produce left and
right handed aminos. Life uses only left handed aminos. Since both
left and right combine in nature, it makes it impossible to create
life in nature. And man cannot even create life yet.
JM
david ford
Precisely. And I showed this through the work of *science*.
> So
> that means god doesn't exist and thus intelligent design is a farce.
Precisely.
> Ok,
> thank you and come back again when you have another theory that you want to
> self-destroy.
I couldn't have done it without Epicurus.
Ian Braidwood
> Suppose Darwinian natural selection wants to make a Tyrannosaurus rex.
No, don't. Natural selection is totally blind and has no foresight or
ability to plan; that is why Dawkins' book is called The _Blind_
Watchmaker.
David, you could at least make up a parody which is credible, rather
than the sick little children you dump here.
Even better, if you're so sure Darwinism is flawed, you could
represent Darwin's ideas truthfully and actually argue against them.
However, this you never do, despite people continually correcting you.
We here know the reason of course: you can't. You simply can't flaw
the logic of Darwinism and have no evidence which points unambiguously
to a creator.
Instead, you and others like you hope that by creating lots of noise,
you can discredit Darwinism in the eyes of the public. A desperate
ploy by a desperate people clinging to a faith, which they know to be
discredited.
> Any IDiot creationist that brings out the naive question, "How did
> totally-blind, mindless-at-every-level processes generate the
> meaning-laden sequences of nucleotides that code for all the different
> biological structures and body plans and organisms in biology?" needs
> to be sat down and informed of the numerous target sequences that
> Darwinian natural selection strove to attain and *did* attain.
Natural selection can build complex organs and organisms, because it
is a cumulative process with all the little mutations being saved in
the DNA. This is why you need a genetic molecule of some description.
Neither T.rex or us were ever a goal for evolution to attain, because
natural selection is totally blind and has no foresight. Thus, it is
misleading to talk about target sequences for evolution to achieve.
Understand that at every stage in the developemental history of an
organism, the living specimen is a successful organism in its own
right and that it is only a point on a potentially infinite branch of
ancestors and decendants. Each organism is equally important, so
singling any one out is irrational.
Evolution has no goals, it only _is_. Organisms will never achieve
perfection, because natuaral selection can only choose those which are
well suited to local conditions.
(-: Ian :-)
Richard Forrest
Evasive as ever, David. You silly attempts at ridicule by
misrepresentation simply don't impress.
It seems that you are proposing that all scientists should abandon
methodological naturalism as a basic premise because you, David Ford,
finds it impossible to argue for ID within the context of
methodological naturalism.
Care to argue your case and support it with evidence?
RF
Ian Braidwood
> There's nothing "wrong" with dishonesty or
> lying, or with anything else, for that matter. That "thou shalt not
> lie" commandment came from a *non-existent* God. This much has been
> proven through *science,* if science has proven anything.
How sad, that you think abandoning God equates with abandoning good.
We're not surprised of course, preachers have long taught that God is
the source of goodness in order to scare people away from an
agnostic/atheist position.
However, Plato undermined this position 2400 years ago and almost
certainly wasn't the first.
The question believers need to ask them selves is this: Does God
determine what is good or does He recognise it?
If the first, then all values are equal and His list is arbitary.
If the second, then goodness is independent of God and He isn't
necessary for the attainment of goodness. Thus, the non-believer can
attain goodness if they have the will and the wisdom.
As for dishonesty being bad, well Plato had an answer, which he put
forward in the Apology.
If you accept that bad people harm those around them and that by
mistreating people, you make them worse; then by mistreating people
you ultimately bring harm upon yourself.
So you see, there is a good and logical reason not to treat others
poorly, which is quite independent of God.
Aesop told a fable about a shepherd boy, who out of boredom, cried
wolf and laughed at the villagers who came running to help him every
time. Until that is, when a wolf really did turn up and ate all the
sheep.
So there is a good and logical reason not to lie, whichever tactic you
use, because sooner or later people will wise up.
That is what I suggest you do David, wise up.
(-: Ian :-)
MurphyInOhio
>
>No, don't. Natural selection is totally blind and has no foresight or
>ability to plan; that is why Dawkins' book is called The _Blind_Watchmaker.
What? Didn't Dawkins take a kooky apparatus on the road, The Weasel Generator,
which he claimed demonstrated Natural Selection and which operated solely by
exercising foresight and planning? The "Generator" highly conserved those
letters which "it knew" it would need to complete. Now, please apologize...on
your way out, yes?
Jake
news:3f355ee.04073...@posting.google.com...
> > No, religion is a crutch for those that can't handle reality.
> > Only the hardiest of individuals, the greatest that walk the earth,
> > can handle the shattering crises that regularly intrude upon humans'
> > existence without seeking solace in a deity that *science* has
> > *proven* through penetrating observation, rigorous testing, and
> > faultless experimentation to *not* exist. Materialism is a scientific
> > fact. Only what is material is real, as conclusively demonstrated by
> > *science*.
>
> It's too bad, then, that evolution is a crutch for those who can't
> handle reality. The shattering crisis of the fact that all supposed
> hominid discoveries were actually fossils that were contemporary with
> human remains, thus rendering the evolution notion powerless sent
> shock waves of fear into the cowering evolutionists. Hence, scientific
> testing, supposed testing, rendered the frog to prince myth a fantasy.
> Seeking solace in himself, the evolutionist has failed, unable to
> prove evolution as true. He seeks to take revenge by fighting to
> censor creationism. His views cannot compete against the truth.
> Materialism has shown that explosions to not create order.
> Materialism has shown that complex objects cannot be created by
> random events.
Have you ever seen a snowflake?
I suppose that "god" creates each and every one... What a tedious and boring
god... God really needs to get a life!
> Even man, himself, cannot create life yet, yet man is
> not a random event, but a complex intelligent being. Since we can
> prove over and over again that complex intelligent beings can
> construct complex objects like computers, we can prove that
> intelligence can do it. But conversely, we cannot prove that random
> events can create complex objects like the human mind. Thus, the idea
> that intelligence created human beings is given an advantage over the
> idea that random events had create human beings. Thus, the balance is
> tilted in the favor of God, and this proven by materialism.
>
> Once again, I ask, where is the observation that proves that random
> events could create life?
All the elements of life occur naturaly... Bring them together randomly...
Eventually the first self-replicating molecule forms... And there you go,
life!
It really is as simple as that. Much simpler than the idea that some sort of
magic ghost creates them.
> By the way, amino acids generated in laboratories produce left and
> right handed aminos. Life uses only left handed aminos. Since both
> left and right combine in nature, it makes it impossible to create
> life in nature. And man cannot even create life yet.
>
> JM
Man has created life many times... It's actually pretty easy. If a magical
ghost created life you would expect it to have some sort of magic properties,
which it does not.
Richard Forrest
One striking difference between 'evolutionists' and creationists is
that 'evolutionists' do not resort to empty rhetoric and character
assasination when faced with a question they can't answer.
RF
Ian Braidwood
> It's too bad, then, that evolution is a crutch for those who can't
> handle reality.
Oh yes, and how is that? How does evolutionary theory support someone
in a crisis? We hear a lot about how their faith in God helped people
through bad times, but there aren't supposed to be any atehists in
foxholes, are there?
> The shattering crisis of the fact that all supposed
> hominid discoveries were actually fossils that were contemporary with
> human remains, thus rendering the evolution notion powerless sent
> shock waves of fear into the cowering evolutionists.
This simply isn't true. Fossil remains of modern humans only date back
to at most, 400,000 years ago, yet Homo.habilis dates to between
2,400,000 and 1,600,000 years ago; that's a gap of 1.2 million years.
> Seeking solace in himself, the evolutionist has failed, unable to
> prove evolution as true. He seeks to take revenge by fighting to
> censor creationism.
How so? Creationism may not have a place in a Biology class, but it is
still taught in churches, despite its being completely wrong.
> His views cannot compete against the truth.
> Materialism has shown that explosions to not create order.
Darwinian evolution doesn't address the Big Bang, that is a seperate
theory.
> Materialism has shown that complex objects cannot be created by
> random events.
Darwinism doesn't claim that it does.
> Even man, himself, cannot create life yet, yet man is
> not a random event, but a complex intelligent being. Since we can
> prove over and over again that complex intelligent beings can
> construct complex objects like computers, we can prove that
> intelligence can do it. But conversely, we cannot prove that random
> events can create complex objects like the human mind.
This assumes that the human mind is a unity. Not even all religious
people believe this.
> Thus, the idea
> that intelligence created human beings is given an advantage over the
> idea that random events had create human beings. Thus, the balance is
> tilted in the favor of God, and this proven by materialism.
No, the balance is tilted in favour of Darwinism, because there is
evidence for that, whereas there is none for God.
> Once again, I ask, where is the observation that proves that random
> events could create life?
There is none that I know of. However, evolution doesn't pretend to
explain how life came into being, only how it changes over time.
> By the way, amino acids generated in laboratories produce left and
> right handed aminos. Life uses only left handed aminos. Since both
> left and right combine in nature, it makes it impossible to create
> life in nature.
Actually, left and right hand amino acids _do not_ combine in nature,
which is why their handedness is an issue at all.
There is no known reason why life chose to use left-handed molecules,
but their incompatibility ensured that once the decision had been
taken, it had to be stuck to. It is of course, strong evidence for
common descent.
(-: Ian :-)
Von Smith
Which was basically the proposition that started this subthread.
Please re-read Mitchell Coffey's post for context.
> But it
> wouldn't invalidate the ToE altogether. The ToE basically says that,
> assuming things do NOT just "pop out", here's how they changed from one
> species to another.
Depends what you mean by "ToE". Obviously, no amount of spontaneous
generation is going to invalidate the fact that mutation plus
selection and/or drift causes allele frequencies in populations to
change over time. If by "ToE" you common descent, then yes, regularly
recurring spontaneous generation (which is what Mitchell Coffey was
talking about) would invalidate it. The prospect of adult worms or
butterflies springing from nothing would also spell a lot of trouble
for any version of ToE that incorporated elements of developmental
biology. It would also seriously undermine any attempt to apply ToE
to the fossil record. Why look for a transitional form like
Sphecomyrma if wasps and ants can just as easily spring from dirt?
> A single occurence of it happening COULD happen simply
> by chance (yeah, right, if the universe lasts for 1 trillion to the
> trillionth power years, there might be a chance in a million of it) and that
> wouldn't cause problems for the ToE.
Well, yes it would. In fact, such a prospect would cause a rather
serious problem for practically all of biology. What you seem to be
forgetting is that scientists dealing with the real world, unlike you
dealing with your hypothetical one, do not have the benefit of the
omniscience needed to know that such an occurence is, in fact, just a
statistical fluke. What scientists would actually see in such an
event is a phenomenon requiring an explanation. Appealing to
one-in-a-google flukes isn't very promising as explanations go.
One must consider that the odds that we are completely wrong about
where life comes from, and that there might be spontaneous generation
phenomena we don't know about yet are a bit higher than
one-in-a-google. So if I had to propose a best explanation for the
observation of worms and insects springing from dirt, I'd have to go
with something like that.
> Now if it happened 30 times a day,
> every day, then we'd have to look long and hard at the ToE but it does use
> the (very strongly supported) assumption that such ambiogenesis happened
> only once or a few times and all other life came from that and simply
> explains how that life changed over time. But if a worm DID happen to just
> pop out, then the ToE would then be able to explain what would happen to all
> the decendants of that worm over time.
1. Mitchell Coffey appeared to be referring to recurring abiogenesis,
not some sort of one-off fluke.
2. Given what the spontaneous generation of an adult worm or insect
would entail, I don't think I would accept mere statistical fluke as a
reasonable explanation for it if it happened. I would have to suspect
that there was indeed something very much at odds with our current
knowledge of biology going on in such an event.
3. The term "such ambiogenesis" [sic] is inaccurate; what is proposed
in current abiogenesis research is nothing like the idea that adult
invertebrates can spring from dirt in one pop under current earth
conditions.
Dave Oldridge
news:murphy-20040801040...@mb-m19.wmconnect.com:
>>> Suppose Darwinian natural selection wants to make a Tyrannosaurus
>>> rex.
>>
>>No, don't. Natural selection is totally blind and has no foresight or
>>ability to plan; that is why Dawkins' book is called The
>>_Blind_Watchmaker. Ian
>
> What? Didn't Dawkins take a kooky apparatus on the road, The Weasel
> Generator, which he claimed demonstrated Natural Selection and which
> operated solely by exercising foresight and planning? The "Generator"
> highly conserved those letters which "it knew" it would need to
> complete. Now, please apologize...on your way out, yes?
Actually the weasel generator is conservative (favoring the creationist
argument), since it assumes a single goal, whereas evolution has as many
"goals" as there are ecologic niches. Claiming that Dawkins use of a
single goal invalidates the simulation is just plain pig-ignorant
sophistic rhetoric designed as swill for the other pigs at the trough.
I'm tired of fake Christians taking God's name in vain in these echoes.
GOD is tired of it. Consider yourselves all warned.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
MurphyInOhio
>misrepresentation simply don't impress.
David...you be's stupid...according to our true believer. LOL
MurphyInOhio
>Eventually the first self-replicating molecule forms... And there you go,
>life!
>
>It really is as simple as that.
Yes...it truly is "simple". Evolutionist POTW candidate. LOL.
MurphyInOhio
>in current abiogenesis research is nothing like
Just as I pay Andy to keep urging Gill Slits in Man, I pay drear here to
continue urging Spontaneous Generation. LOL
MurphyInOhio
>> Generator, which he claimed demonstrated Natural Selection and which
>> operated solely by exercising foresight and planning? The "Generator"
>> highly conserved those letters which "it knew" it would need to complete.
>Actually the weasel generator is conservative (favoring the creationist
>argument), since it assumes a single goal,
>Dave
Bingo. Teleology. Just what the posted had DENIED in evolution.
>I'm tired of fake Christians taking God's name in vain in these echoes.
>GOD is tired of it.
>Dave
Dave...the only "god" I mentioned was Dawkins. Hmmm, I wonder...does that mean
that our fake "Christian" Dave worships...?
Frank J
I can't access the link. Quick questions, though: Is HGT mostly a
Precambrian occurrance? Can we still speak of an LCA (population) of
chordates? mammals? etc.?
And what is the latest consensus (or debate) on
archaebacteria/eubacteria?
Dave Oldridge
news:murphy-20040801102...@mb-m22.wmconnect.com:
>>> What? Didn't Dawkins take a kooky apparatus on the road, The Weasel
>>> Generator, which he claimed demonstrated Natural Selection and which
>>> operated solely by exercising foresight and planning? The
>>> "Generator" highly conserved those letters which "it knew" it would
>>> need to complete.
>>Xomicron in Toronto
>
>>Actually the weasel generator is conservative (favoring the
>>creationist argument), since it assumes a single goal,
>>Dave
>
> Bingo. Teleology. Just what the posted had DENIED in evolution.
No....just that Dawkins simplified by choosing a single goal, when
evolution is under no such constraint.
>>I'm tired of fake Christians taking God's name in vain in these
>>echoes. GOD is tired of it.
>>Dave
>
> Dave...the only "god" I mentioned was Dawkins. Hmmm, I wonder...does
> that mean that our fake "Christian" Dave worships...?
No, it means that I read you like a book. You're a poser. A fake. A
hypocrite. Not only that, you know it.
Dave Oldridge
Just like *I* pay morons like you to insist that God placed the scars of
genetic accidents in the identical locations in pongid and human genomes
and to insist that God messed around with the physics of the cosmos and
the earth just to fool scientists into believing that they are old.
You do a marvellous job of showing the world that creationism is a
bankrupt, false, heretical religious ideology with no real use for
scientific evidence other than to lie about it in order to promote a
stupid interpretation of scripture made up by 19th and 20th century
rebels against the Church. Rebels who now want their rebellion made
mandatory by the state. Why is this all so familiar? Oh yes, that's
right. The Roman Empire tried the same trick!
Richard Forrest
If ever you have anything useful to contribute, feel free.
Till then, fuck off.
prab...@shamrocksgf.com
> Precisely.
So that means we won't see you arguing for ID anymore, right? That'll raise
the s-n ratio skyhight on this newsgroup.
--
Mike
W hat atheism: a non-prophet organization...
W ould
J enna
D rink?
-------------------------------
Creation Science: an oxymoron actually created by morons...
-------------------------------
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you
do criticize them, you're a mile away, and you have their shoes.
prab...@shamrocksgf.com
He simply said (and it was quoted above) that "Seeing worms or insects
emerge from dirt would falsify Darwinian theory." He didn't say "Seeing
worms or insects emerge from dirt repeatedly, numerous times, would falsify
Darwinian theory." He basically implied that even a single instance of
spontanous generation would do it, which is bull.
>> But it
>> wouldn't invalidate the ToE altogether. The ToE basically says that,
>> assuming things do NOT just "pop out", here's how they changed from one
>> species to another.
> Depends what you mean by "ToE". Obviously, no amount of spontaneous
> generation is going to invalidate the fact that mutation plus
> selection and/or drift causes allele frequencies in populations to
> change over time. If by "ToE" you common descent, then yes, regularly
> recurring spontaneous generation (which is what Mitchell Coffey was
> talking about) would invalidate it. The prospect of adult worms or
> butterflies springing from nothing would also spell a lot of trouble
> for any version of ToE that incorporated elements of developmental
> biology. It would also seriously undermine any attempt to apply ToE
> to the fossil record. Why look for a transitional form like
> Sphecomyrma if wasps and ants can just as easily spring from dirt?
Again, he didn't say they'd easily spring from dirt or do so repeatedly. He
said seeing it at all would invalidate it but it wouldn't.
>> A single occurence of it happening COULD happen simply
>> by chance (yeah, right, if the universe lasts for 1 trillion to the
>> trillionth power years, there might be a chance in a million of it) and that
>> wouldn't cause problems for the ToE.
> Well, yes it would. In fact, such a prospect would cause a rather
> serious problem for practically all of biology. What you seem to be
> forgetting is that scientists dealing with the real world, unlike you
> dealing with your hypothetical one, do not have the benefit of the
> omniscience needed to know that such an occurence is, in fact, just a
> statistical fluke. What scientists would actually see in such an
> event is a phenomenon requiring an explanation.
And seeing a single isolated occurence could have the explanation of "it's a
statistical fluke." Nothing in science says it couldn't ever happen. Science
DOES say it could but is extremely unlikely.
Appealing to
> one-in-a-google flukes isn't very promising as explanations go.
Does science say that seperate atoms can't just happen to come together in
exactly the right pattern to form a worm? No. Does it say that the odds
are extremely high? Sure does. Just because something's extremely unlikely
there's no reason to say it can't happen at all. Yes, most scientists would
look for other explanations if they saw worms coming from sterile dirt but
they'd also realize that it's possible for them to have just "popped in" and
would keep that in mind IF no other explanations are ever found. But,
because of the odds, they'd practically die trying to find another reason.
> One must consider that the odds that we are completely wrong about
> where life comes from, and that there might be spontaneous generation
> phenomena we don't know about yet are a bit higher than
> one-in-a-google. So if I had to propose a best explanation for the
> observation of worms and insects springing from dirt, I'd have to go
> with something like that.
Yes, so would I. But even then seeing the worms pop out wouldn't have
invalidated ToE. They might cause a lot of OTHER questions but not cause
problems for that.
>> Now if it happened 30 times a day,
>> every day, then we'd have to look long and hard at the ToE but it does use
>> the (very strongly supported) assumption that such ambiogenesis happened
>> only once or a few times and all other life came from that and simply
>> explains how that life changed over time. But if a worm DID happen to just
>> pop out, then the ToE would then be able to explain what would happen to all
>> the decendants of that worm over time.
> 1. Mitchell Coffey appeared to be referring to recurring abiogenesis,
> not some sort of one-off fluke.
If he was then he didn't state it as such. I was responding to what he was
actually saying.
> 2. Given what the spontaneous generation of an adult worm or insect
> would entail, I don't think I would accept mere statistical fluke as a
> reasonable explanation for it if it happened. I would have to suspect
> that there was indeed something very much at odds with our current
> knowledge of biology going on in such an event.
I wouldn't readily accept "a fluke" either. But it's still a possibility.
> 3. The term "such ambiogenesis" [sic] is inaccurate; what is proposed
> in current abiogenesis research is nothing like the idea that adult
> invertebrates can spring from dirt in one pop under current earth
> conditions.
1. Yes, I realized I may have been misspelling it but was being lazy for a
change (I usually do look up words that I'm not sure of :)
2. By "such abiogenesis" I simply meant "some type of life form emerging
from non-living material" but, after re-reading my statement, I realize I
didn't say it quite that way. Yes, I know that current hypotheses say that
it'd be extremely simple lifeforms that first appeared.
> Von Smith
> Fortuna nimis dat multis, satis nulli.
John Wilkins
<prab...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:
> In talk.atheism Von Smith <drea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
... [check back to find out who and what]
> >> Yes, if they were popping out all the time, that'd cause problems.
>
> > Which was basically the proposition that started this subthread.
> > Please re-read Mitchell Coffey's post for context.
>
> He simply said (and it was quoted above) that "Seeing worms or insects
> emerge from dirt would falsify Darwinian theory." He didn't say "Seeing
> worms or insects emerge from dirt repeatedly, numerous times, would falsify
> Darwinian theory." He basically implied that even a single instance of
> spontanous generation would do it, which is bull.
Actually, it's not. On the Darwinian view of evolution, these organisms
are not "lower" forms or less evolved - they are every bit as aevolved
as we are. A Darwinian view would not expect that a complex organism
like a worm or insect would spontaneously appear - that would indeed
undercut the basic tenets of evolutionary theory. The original organisms
would have been *very* simple - probably protocells with very few of the
modern complexities of a bacterium or amoeba.
>
> >> But it
> >> wouldn't invalidate the ToE altogether. The ToE basically says that,
> >> assuming things do NOT just "pop out", here's how they changed from one
> >> species to another.
>
> > Depends what you mean by "ToE". Obviously, no amount of spontaneous
> > generation is going to invalidate the fact that mutation plus
> > selection and/or drift causes allele frequencies in populations to
> > change over time. If by "ToE" you common descent, then yes, regularly
> > recurring spontaneous generation (which is what Mitchell Coffey was
> > talking about) would invalidate it. The prospect of adult worms or
> > butterflies springing from nothing would also spell a lot of trouble
> > for any version of ToE that incorporated elements of developmental
> > biology. It would also seriously undermine any attempt to apply ToE
> > to the fossil record. Why look for a transitional form like
> > Sphecomyrma if wasps and ants can just as easily spring from dirt?
>
> Again, he didn't say they'd easily spring from dirt or do so repeatedly.
> He said seeing it at all would invalidate it but it wouldn't.
If you think so, then you simply do not appreciate the content of
evolutionary theory.
The degree of likelihood of this happening is somewhat less than the
degree of likelihood that all the atoms of air in a room would suddenly
congregate in the top left corner. You can say it is still possible, in
that there is no logical barrier to it happening, and it is not
physically *prohibited*, but in real science, not everything that is not
prohibited is mandatory.
>
> > One must consider that the odds that we are completely wrong about
> > where life comes from, and that there might be spontaneous generation
> > phenomena we don't know about yet are a bit higher than
> > one-in-a-google. So if I had to propose a best explanation for the
> > observation of worms and insects springing from dirt, I'd have to go
> > with something like that.
>
> Yes, so would I. But even then seeing the worms pop out wouldn't have
> invalidated ToE. They might cause a lot of OTHER questions but not cause
> problems for that.
I disagree
As evolution is all about probabilities, the claim that we might not
have trouble with something so vanishingly unlikely as the appearance of
complex organic structure without precursors is plain ridiculous.
--
John Wilkins
john...@wilkins.id.au http://wilkins.id.au
"Men mark it when they hit, but do not mark it when they miss"
- Francis Bacon
J McCoy
> "J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
> news:3f355ee.04073...@posting.google.com...
> > > No, religion is a crutch for those that can't handle reality.
> > > Only the hardiest of individuals, the greatest that walk the earth,
> > > can handle the shattering crises that regularly intrude upon humans'
> > > existence without seeking solace in a deity that *science* has
> > > *proven* through penetrating observation, rigorous testing, and
> > > faultless experimentation to *not* exist. Materialism is a scientific
> > > fact. Only what is material is real, as conclusively demonstrated by
> > > *science*.
> >
> > It's too bad, then, that evolution is a crutch for those who can't
> > handle reality. The shattering crisis of the fact that all supposed
> > hominid discoveries were actually fossils that were contemporary with
> > human remains, thus rendering the evolution notion powerless sent
> > shock waves of fear into the cowering evolutionists. Hence, scientific
> > testing, supposed testing, rendered the frog to prince myth a fantasy.
> > Seeking solace in himself, the evolutionist has failed, unable to
> > prove evolution as true. He seeks to take revenge by fighting to
> > censor creationism. His views cannot compete against the truth.
> > Materialism has shown that explosions to not create order.
> > Materialism has shown that complex objects cannot be created by
> > random events.
>
>
> Have you ever seen a snowflake?
Have you ever seen a computer? A snowflake is a primitive form. A
brain is complex. Have you seen your brain on drugs. Take an egg and
put it on a frying pan. Then maybe you'll see the difference between
a computer and a snowflake.
>
> I suppose that "god" creates each and every one... What a tedious and boring
> god... God really needs to get a life!
No. You will lose your life.
>
> > Even man, himself, cannot create life yet, yet man is
> > not a random event, but a complex intelligent being. Since we can
> > prove over and over again that complex intelligent beings can
> > construct complex objects like computers, we can prove that
> > intelligence can do it. But conversely, we cannot prove that random
> > events can create complex objects like the human mind. Thus, the idea
> > that intelligence created human beings is given an advantage over the
> > idea that random events had create human beings. Thus, the balance is
> > tilted in the favor of God, and this proven by materialism.
> >
> > Once again, I ask, where is the observation that proves that random
> > events could create life?
>
>
> All the elements of life occur naturaly... Bring them together randomly...
> Eventually the first self-replicating molecule forms... And there you go,
> life!
You make it sound so simple. But you've missed an important
ingredient. Man cannot, even with the use of his great intelligence,
cannot create life...yet. Maybe someday, but not yet. And if he
does that proves that intelligence can create complex things. Now
prove to me that random events can create life. Bring forth the data.
>
> It really is as simple as that. Much simpler than the idea that some sort of
> magic ghost creates them.
Read my above paragraph again.
>
>
> > By the way, amino acids generated in laboratories produce left and
> > right handed aminos. Life uses only left handed aminos. Since both
> > left and right combine in nature, it makes it impossible to create
> > life in nature. And man cannot even create life yet.
> >
> > JM
>
> Man has created life many times... It's actually pretty easy. If a magical
> ghost created life you would expect it to have some sort of magic properties,
> which it does not.
If man create life, then the person that actually did it would have a
best seller on hand. The textbooks would have that info.
But so far no book has emerged to promote your false viewpoint.
JM
Mitchell Coffey
<glenns...@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
>
>"Mitchell Coffey" <mdotcoffeyats...@hunter.news.rcn.net>
>wrote in message news:4unjg0lpr6kgdnb3t...@4ax.com...
>
>> Seeing worms or insects emerge from dirt would falsify Darwinian
>> theory,
>
>Oh bullshit.
Why do you think it wouldn't?
Mitchell Coffey
________________________________________________________________
From All Through the Night (1942) -
Nazi Agent:
"You're no democrat! You're like me - a man-of-action!"
Humphrey Bogart (as small-time NY hood, nonetheless anti-Nazi):
"I may not be exactly a model citizen, but I've been a
registered Democrat all my life."