29 Mar 06
Here's a little something from that quoted article:
"In any event, polymerization having been concluded—by whatever means—the result was (in the words of Gerald Joyce and Leslie Orgel) “a random ensemble of polynucleotide sequences”: long molecules emerging from short ones, like fronds on the surface of a pond. Among these fronds, nature is said to have discovered a self-replicating molecule. But how?
Darwinian evolution is plainly unavailing in this exercise or that era, since Darwinian evolution begins with self-replication, and self-replication is precisely what needs to be explained. But if Darwinian evolution is unavailing, so, too, is chemistry. The fronds comprise “a random ensemble of polynucleotide sequences” (emphasis added); but no principle of organic chemistry suggests that aimless encounters among nucleic acids must lead to a chain capable of self-replication.
If chemistry is unavailing and Darwin indisposed, what is left as a mechanism? The evolutionary biologist’s finest friend: sheer dumb luck.
Was nature lucky? It depends on the payoff and the odds. The payoff is clear: an ancestral form of RNA capable of replication. Without that payoff, there is no life, and obviously, at some point, the payoff paid off. The question is the odds.
For the moment, no one knows how precisely to compute those odds, if only because within the laboratory, no one has conducted an experiment leading to a self-replicating ribozyme. But the minimum length or “sequence” that is needed for a contemporary ribozyme to undertake what the distinguished geochemist Gustaf Arrhenius calls “demonstrated ligase activity” is known. It is roughly 100 nucleotides.
Whereupon, just as one might expect, things blow up very quickly. As Arrhenius notes, there are 4100 or roughly 1060 nucleotide sequences that are 100 nucleotides in length. This is an unfathomably large number. It exceeds the number of atoms contained in the universe, as well as the age of the universe in seconds. If the odds in favor of self-replication are 1 in 1060, no betting man would take them, no matter how attractive the payoff, and neither presumably would nature."
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
29 Mar 06
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't deny that there are variations within every created kind.
I can't follow dj2becker's claims at all. In this thread, he appears to be arguing that even micro-evolution is impossible; after all, if a species goes through evolutionary changes at some point members will diverge into a separate species. I thought even the YEC's conceded this; thus, a "cat thing" on the ark evolved into lions, tigers, domestic cats, ...[text shortened]... evelop the characteristics of a lion. These are differences of degree, not of kind.
It's the "fact" that all species evolved from one common ancestor, as announced by the TOE that is rather hard to swallow...
Even Darwin said in his Origin of Species that there would be millions of transitional fossils everywhere if this were the case…
29 Mar 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf the words observed and reproduced were taken so narowly[sic] as to exclude evolution then it would also exclude almost all fields of what is accepted as science. An popular denial of evolution is that it has not been seen in a test tube. If all scientific study had to happen in test tubes then only a little bit of Chemistry might survive.
That of course depends on your definition of the word observed. Yes science requires evidence, but evidence is not the same thing as see with your own eyes. However observed may mean the existance of evidence. For example I have observed that you have a negative attitude towards evolution. I did not physically see your attitude, but there is plenty of evi ...[text shortened]... scientific study had to happen in test tubes then only a little bit of Chemistry might survive.
What?! Something doesn't have to be in a test tube to be observable; and you say that the creationists are narrow-minded? Mutation-induced genetic variation has been observed -- this is what science calls microevolution. Neo-Darwinian (the evolution of all living creatures from one primordial ancestor) evolution cannot be observed, since it has already happened. Thus, hard science gives way to the forensic pursuit of paleontology (soft science) to prove these assertions. You take the observed genetic variation and extrapolate it as irrefutable proof for the neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution and then to crown it all, you are smugly claiming to have observed this? Please. How obfuscatory can you get? Define observed. Do you mean it in the same way as a man observing footsteps in the ground and then a body-sized depression has irrefutably observed someone tripping and falling? Your lackluster claims are getting more and more fantastic by the day. What next?
29 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by XanthosNZAll sickness is from satan.
Please provide evidence that every single reported observation of evolution is a fake. Also provide an explanation for how the common cold and HIV work now that they can't mutate.
Do this or shut the hell up RB.
And sickness is also here becasue of man's sin.
29 Mar 06
Originally posted by dj2beckerOf course Darwin said no such thing. And of course there are many transitional fossils as you well know. Creationists insist that the only thing that would qualify as a "transitional fossil" is a monlkey with the head of a fish or some such impossible monstrosity; people have patiently (and not so patiently) explained to you many times that that isn't how evolution works.
I don't deny that there are variations within every created kind.
It's the "fact" that all species evolved from one common ancestor, as announced by the TOE that is rather hard to swallow...
Even Darwin said in his Origin of Species that there would be millions of transitional fossils everywhere if this were the case…
I see you utterly ignored my point regarding the flimsy definitional nature of calling one thing "life" and other thing "non-life". Is a virus "life"? If so, why? If not, why not?
29 Mar 06
Originally posted by HalitoseThis ridiculous skeptism of science is a trademark of the ostrich-like "minds" of our primitive "Christians" here. How paleontology can be labelled a "soft" science is beyond comprehension; it deals with direct evidence of prior ages - it is no more "soft" than geology.
[b]If the words observed and reproduced were taken so narowly[sic] as to exclude evolution then it would also exclude almost all fields of what is accepted as science. An popular denial of evolution is that it has not been seen in a test tube. If all scientific study had to happen in test tubes then only a little bit of Chemistry might survive.
What? ...[text shortened]... and falling? Your lackluster claims are getting more and more fantastic by the day. What next?[/b]
29 Mar 06
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat you rightly call "direct evidence" is not the issue. The issue is the conclusions reached by those viewing the evidence. TOE is rife with musts and would haves, rendering it the system of magic and miracles, a cornucopia of gap-ology.
This ridiculous skeptism of science is a trademark of the ostrich-like "minds" of our primitive "Christians" here. How paleontology can be labelled a "soft" science is beyond comprehension; it deals with direct evidence of prior ages - it is no more "soft" than geology.
29 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBunk. You've obviously never read a biology textbook.
What you rightly call "direct evidence" is not the issue. The issue is the conclusions reached by those viewing the evidence. TOE is rife with musts and would haves, rendering it the system of magic and miracles, a cornucopia of gap-ology.
29 Mar 06
Originally posted by no1marauderObviously. Typical of your unfounded charges, an illogical retort. I would recommend you to read the article posted above; it's actually written by an academic who has not only read books on the subject, he had [gasp!] written books on the subject.
Bunk. You've obviously never read a biology textbook.
Real books! Books that really mean something, that real people have really read!
29 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAnd where does he say this tripe:
Obviously. Typical of your unfounded charges, an illogical retort. I would recommend you to read the article posted above; it's actually written by an academic who has not only read books on the subject, he had [gasp!] [b]written books on the subject.
Real books! Books that really mean something, that real people have really read![/b]
TOE is rife with musts and would haves, rendering it the system of magic and miracles, a cornucopia of gap-ology.
EDIT: And if you're going to try to Appeal to Authority, you might try a biologist, not a guy with a PHD in Philosophy like Berlinski. And you might also try to find an article from somewhere besides a conservative Christian "think tank" like the Discovery Institute.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute
29 Mar 06
Originally posted by no1marauderOh, that? That wasn't his tripe; that was mine. He says it much more eloquently, with more profound effect. Of course, with your staggering intellect, I'm sure you'll crush his writings with a simple, "He's an idiot," "LOL! Does anyone actually BELIEVE this load of crock?" or some such keen insight.
And where does he say this tripe:
TOE is rife with musts and would haves, rendering it the system of magic and miracles, a cornucopia of gap-ology.
29 Mar 06
Originally posted by no1marauderHow paleontology can be labelled a "soft" science is beyond comprehension...
This ridiculous skeptism of science is a trademark of the ostrich-like "minds" of our primitive "Christians" here. How paleontology can be labelled a "soft" science is beyond comprehension; it deals with direct evidence of prior ages - it is no more "soft" than geology.
Your ignorance is showing:
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science
Hard science is a term, which often is used to describe certain fields of the natural sciences, usually physics, chemistry, and many fields of biology. The hard sciences are said to rely on experimental, quantifiable data or the scientific method and focus on accuracy and objectivity. The hard sciences are often contrasted with the 'soft sciences' and social sciences, which are by contrast implied to have less rigor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_science
Soft science is a colloquial term, often used pejoratively, for academic research or scholarship which is purportedly not based on reproducible experimental data and a mathematical explanation of that data. It is usually opposed to "hard science," rather than to non-science.
Studies of anthropology, history, psychology, and sociology are sometimes called "soft sciences."
Even within the natural sciences, research which depends upon conjecture, qualitative analysis of data (compared to quantitative analysis), or uncertain experimental results is sometimes derided as soft science (cosmology is one common example). But more often the term is applied to the social sciences by doubters of their objective rigor. In its broadest sense, even largely non-quantitative, non-experimental fields of the humanities like literary criticism or gender studies are disparaged as soft science.
Before going off half-cocked again, try reading up on those long words you don't understand. 😛