30 Apr 08
Originally posted by RetrovirusI'm sorry if there is a post you want me to respond to post it again.
The research of "non-life" becoming "life" is not a part of the theory of evolution, but rather belongs to Abiogenesis.
And even if A is more complicated than B, it does not mean that A is impossible.
P.S
You haven't responded to many of my posts.
I'm posting with more than a few people here and I lose track of
some of my posts when I do not make it here daily as is it case
most of the time of late.
ID and evolution have one thing in common, a beginning. Evolution
is an on going process yes, and ID is a starting block true, but you
don't get to say here is the process it just never had a beginning.
Like life it started at some time, and the beginning of a process is
very important! If you assume evolution started without any design
involved at all, you have to believe non-living material became
alive at some point which again goes back to my earlier statement.
Kelly
30 Apr 08
Originally posted by KellyJayIf you have no other evidence, then especially when you're talking about living things then you would see order, but order isn't necessarily design.
The trouble I have with what your saying is that you are required to
see the factory to know, you cannot see design without seeing the
factory?
Kelly
30 Apr 08
Originally posted by KellyJay1) I refered to
I'm sorry if there is a post you want me to respond to post it again.
I'm posting with more than a few people here and I lose track of
some of my posts when I do not make it here daily as is it case
most of the time of late.
ID and evolution have one thing in common, a beginning. Evolution
is an on going process yes, and ID is a starting block true, ...[text shortened]... ng material became
alive at some point which again goes back to my earlier statement.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJay
If you cannot use something and make a prediction no matter what it
is, it isn't science? Is that how you have come to define science, or I
should say is that how science is defined now? The ability to predict
is a must?
Kelly
My answer:
It's scientific method time!
1)First, you begin with a phenomenon or finding you want to explain.
2) Then, construct and hypothesis that explains them.
3) Testing of the hypothesis. Conduct an experiment that tests predications made by the hypothesis.
Do the results verify the predictions?
4a) If not, discard hypothesis or modify it and restart the process
4b) If true, re-challenge it again and again while attempting to construct a logically self-consistent framework from it - a theory
5) Put the theory to more tests, retaining, modifying or discarding it, depending on the results.
----
So, without making predictions, how can you test an hypothesis (3) ?
Thanks again.
------------
2) Well, yes, I support the notion that non-living material can become alive (I support the peptide nanosphere assisted RNA hypothesis*, to be more exact**). However, the origin of life is not in the scope of the theory of evolution - just like nuclear physics aren't.
*Mind you, it is only an hypothesis now, not a theory, and it might be found out to be untrue. In that case, I will have no problems with discarding it.
**Which can be read here :
http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/abstract/19/9/1051
30 Apr 08
Originally posted by KellyJayIf you assume evolution started without any design
I'm sorry if there is a post you want me to respond to post it again.
I'm posting with more than a few people here and I lose track of
some of my posts when I do not make it here daily as is it case
most of the time of late.
ID and evolution have one thing in common, a beginning. Evolution
is an on going process yes, and ID is a starting block true, ...[text shortened]... ng material became
alive at some point which again goes back to my earlier statement.
Kelly
involved at all, you have to believe non-living material became
alive at some point which again goes back to my earlier statement.
Well no, all you have to believe is that non-living material gained a structure that began to replicate itself. That, when it comes right down to it, is all that life is:self-replicating structures.
--- Penguin.
30 Apr 08
Originally posted by KellyJayAt some point the discussion of how did
If ID is a reality, you believe that means who ever did the design had
to create the unvierse too? If you make a car does that mean you
made the highways too? At some point the discussion of how did
everything get here must be made, but it is a different subject.
Kelly
everything get here must be made, but it is a different subject.
And yet you won't admit that abiogenesis is a different subject to evolution.
You can look at a car and say well, how did that get here? Cars don't make more cars, they are not self-replicating, so evolution cannot account for it. If you see them being made in factories by people (or rather robots these days but controlled by people), from designs which you can watch people making, and when you can ask those people about the design process, you can be pretty sure that cars are designed by an intelligence.
So that answers how cars came about: PeopleDunnit. But hang on there, people are far more complicated than cars so now you have to answer the question What Done People?
Well, people make people: they are self-replicating and so evolution can explain people coming, eventually, from simple self-replicating chemical structures. No barriers to the process have been found, even though some people have suggested that It Just Can't Be. These first structures may even be simple enough to have come about through chance alone although much work still needs to be done to demonstrate the actual likelihood of that.
If the people who claim It Just Can't Be are right, then how else could people have been made? Well maybe SomethingElseDunnit. It's a possibility. Maybe some other intelligence designed all life to work exactly as if it had evolved.
Well fine, but then we have the same situation concerning People and Cars, only more so since the SomethingElse must be even more complicated than people. So in fact the problem is now harder: If evolution fails to explain people due to their complexity (although nobody has actually shown that it does fail) then it's certainly not going to explain the even more complex SomethingElse.
So at some stage, we have to find a mechanism that can explain complex things in terms of coming from something simpler. Well, there was this evolution idea that had lots of evidence behind it and no-one came up with a decent reason why it couldn't explain people. Maybe that can do it. And actually, if that can explain the Something Else after all, then it can explain people too, without needing to resort to the SomethingElse hypothesis!
In the absence of any evidence for SomethingElse, I say we follow the evolution path until we find a good reason why it won't work. Then we can start looking for alternatives but until we come up with another mechanism for generating complexity from simplicity, we won't really have explained where cars came from.
Note that in all of the above, I made no mention of the G-word.
--- Penguin.
30 Apr 08
Originally posted by KellyJayOf course going from non life to non life is easier than non life to life, an obvious an non argueable point. However, you stating / hinting at machines requiring a designer gives absolutely no weight to your arguement that life needs a designer. So it really is a pointless analogy that everyone with more than a single brain cell can see straight through. By all means keep making the piont, it shows us all how ignorant you are.
A point I continue to make, yes, even if you refuse to believe in God
or gods at some point non-living matter has to turn into living matter.
The material going from non-life to life has to be a harder change
than non-living to non-living, unless you can show me it isn't.
Kelly
Is the evidence for abiogenesis as concrete as evolution? No abiogenesis is still in its infancy. But the knowledge we have to date certainly makes a far simpler explaination than mythical creatures.....
I would provide you some links but you always refuse to read, or just ignore the post. Science has come along way since the Urey and Miller experiment........... which YOU probably believe is the only grasp science has on abiogenesis.
01 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by timebombtedThanks. I'm particularly interested to see whether KJ has a lucid response (it's 4 posts above this one KJ).
I read every word, a good post.
You are right, the creator / designer hypothesis is circular and more complicated than abiogenesis and the subsequent evolutionary process.
--- Penguin.
01 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Retrovirus[/b]I agree that evolution is a process, and at some point that process
1) I refered to
Originally posted by KellyJay
[b]If you cannot use something and make a prediction no matter what it
is, it isn't science? Is that how you have come to define science, or I
should say is that how science is defined now? The ability to predict
is a must?
Kelly
My answer:
It's scientific method time rding it.
**Which can be read here :
http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/abstract/19/9/1051
requires a beginning does it not? If you are suggesting it doesn't it
sort of distorts the time line for life does it not? ID and evolution can
both be true and in complete agreement with each other with respect
to reality, the only difference between the two as they are accepted
now is the verbiage "this can happen over time with small changes"
when being applied to very complex changes occurring. The area where
ID disagrees with some of the current evolutionary theory is that
evolution is a mindless process that does not require any guide; that
does not change that it is a process, or we that we can make
predictions about it either. We for the most part are all chess players
here we make predictions on patters all the time in the game we love
to play.
Kelly
01 May 08
Originally posted by PenguinI think life is little more than that, at least the life I interact with on
[b]If you assume evolution started without any design
involved at all, you have to believe non-living material became
alive at some point which again goes back to my earlier statement.
Well no, all you have to believe is that non-living material gained a structure that began to replicate itself. That, when it comes right down to it, is all that life is:self-replicating structures.
--- Penguin.[/b]
a daily bases is.
Kelly
01 May 08
Originally posted by Penguin"And yet you won't admit that abiogenesis is a different subject to evolution. "
[b]At some point the discussion of how did
everything get here must be made, but it is a different subject.
And yet you won't admit that abiogenesis is a different subject to evolution.
You can look at a car and say well, how did that get here? Cars don't make more cars, they are not self-replicating, so evolution cannot account for it. If you see ...[text shortened]... rom.
Note that in all of the above, I made no mention of the G-word.
--- Penguin.[/b]
Yes and no, it isn't something I will not admit to, I have said it is
a different subject, but it can be the same one too. It would be like
saying we are going to talk about dogs, but never talk about puppies
because that is a different subject. Talking about a process's end,
its middle, or its end is not changing the subject about that topic it
only means we are discussiong a certain part of the process nothing
more.
Kelly
01 May 08
Originally posted by Penguin"...and when you can ask those people about the design process, you can be pretty sure that cars are designed by an intelligence. "
[b]At some point the discussion of how did
everything get here must be made, but it is a different subject.
And yet you won't admit that abiogenesis is a different subject to evolution.
You can look at a car and say well, how did that get here? Cars don't make more cars, they are not self-replicating, so evolution cannot account for it. If you see ...[text shortened]... rom.
Note that in all of the above, I made no mention of the G-word.
--- Penguin.[/b]
So the only reason you do not accept design is you cannot ask about
it, you cannot see if for yourself?
Kelly
01 May 08
3 edits
Originally posted by Penguin"At some point the discussion of how did everything get here must be
[b]At some point the discussion of how did
everything get here must be made, but it is a different subject.
And yet you won't admit that abiogenesis is a different subject to evolution.
You can look at a car and say well, how did that get here? Cars don't make more cars, they are not self-replicating, so evolution cannot account for it. If you see rom.
Note that in all of the above, I made no mention of the G-word.
--- Penguin.[/b]
made, but it is a different subject.
And yet you won't admit that abiogenesis is a different subject to evolution."
"Well, people make people: they are self-replicating and so evolution
can explain people coming, eventually, from simple self-replicating
chemical structures. No barriers to the process have been found, even
though some people have suggested that It Just Can't Be. These first
structures may even be simple enough to have come about through
chance alone although much work still needs to be done to
demonstrate the actual likelihood of that. "
I think you should look at these two statements, according to your
words the process evolution does not speak to abiogenesis, please
clear this up for me. I'm sure I'm not reading you point correctly,
you cannot have people self-replicating and say evolution can tell
us about the beginning of life, if the beginning of life and evolution
are not part of the same subject.
Kelly