Evolution Question

Sin · January 3, 2009

Alright, i've been pondering about this text i have noticed on a different website.

What would be your response to this statement? I really do not understand what they are trying to put out.

This...just doesn't sound right, I can't put my finger on it but i find something strange about it, thus, i decided to ask it here.

For a side-note: I believe he is talking about The Big Bang Theory.

just listen to this.
i won't go through a detailed description of the likeliness of each part of the necessary parts of a cell forming,i will just tell the chances of the cell as a whole forming spontaneously.in mathematics(statistics),something that has 10^50 chances of succeeding before one chance of failure is known as a fact.and the opposite is when something has a 10^50 chances of failing before one chance of succeeding,this is known as a statistical impossibility.for a single cell to from spontaneously in the most ideal conditions is a little over 10^1billion chances of failure before 1 chance of succeeding.it is statistically trillions and trillions and triliions and trillions of times more likely for you to be dropping a metal ball and instead of gravity making it fall,it floats up in the air and flies away.considering the chances of the ball floating away:if you dropped the metal ball once a second, it would take a time much longer than the age of the universe just to drop the ball half the amount of times you would need to to see it float away.so please tell me how life can spontaneoulsy form.don't you think that there is an outside intelligence trillions and trillions of times that of ours that governed the creation or created our universe?

Kyrisch · January 3, 2009

Look, this is just ridiculous. There are several problems wrong with this approach:

1. Extant cells are incredibly complex, the protobionts of the theory of abiogenesis were analogous to genetic material in soap bubbles.

2. The components of cells have a natural affinity to each other. The same way nebula coalesce to form stars, biotic material coalesces to form a biotic system.

3. Where do these probabilities even come from in the first place? I mean, come on.

Sin · January 3, 2009

2. The components of cells have a natural affinity to each other. The same way nebula coalesce to form stars, biotic material coalesces to form a biotic system.

Thank you, for the speedy and well-written response!

But now i ask you, to please explain the above quote in more detail?

Kyrisch · January 3, 2009

Not only do lipid bubbles form spontaneously in the proper environment, the primitive genetic material in the theories of abiogenesis could theoretically self-replicate without the aid of enzymes through nucleic acid base pairing (Adenine with Thyamine, Guanine with Cytosine).

iNow · January 3, 2009

To be frank, it's yet another stupid question from creationists. Listen, the modern day cell with all of it's cool functionality, mitochondria and enzymes and machinery didn't just shit itself into existence. No, that's not what happened, yet that's what your quoted text is trying to suggest to you. That's what's called a strawman argument (where they misrepresent the actual truth, then argue against that misrepresentation instead of the actual truth and claim victory).

Basically, it didn't all just happen in one big step. There was no division between "no cells" and "modern cells" in one random leap. What happened was, over millions and millions of years, small incremental changes occurred, until eventually we arrived at cells in their present state.

The stupidity in that quote is in suggesting it's all "random" and that it all "happened at once." It's not random, nor did it all happen at once. Some mutations are random, but each generation builds on what came before it. The successful changes get shared with future generations, and unsuccessful changes eventually get weeded out.

If you want to understand this better, then I want you to watch these two presentations. One is about abiogenesis (the creation of life) and the other is about the probability of evolution. They are presented in a way that makes sense, and they are easy to follow. I hope they help.

The Origin of Life Made Easy -

Climbing Mount Improbable - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-690865967686494800&hl=en

(btw - The entire "Made Easy" series is quite good, and if you enjoyed the above, you can watch more here - http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=DB23537556D7AADB)

Sin · January 3, 2009

Not only do lipid bubbles form spontaneously in the proper environment, the primitive genetic material in the theories of abiogenesis could theoretically self-replicate without the aid of enzymes through nucleic acid base pairing (Adenine with Thyamine, Guanine with Cytosine).

Alright. I had to look up a few of those words, :doh: but i believe i got the point of your statement.

If i find another suggestive evolution topic similar to this i will post it in here instead of make a new topic.

EDIT: iNow,thank you also. Dang, this probably the 6-8the topic you have taught me something new on, I'll definately be checking out those videos soon!

iNow · January 3, 2009

Like I said, I hope they help.

When you're done watching them (the second one is longer, but really really worth the time viewing it), then don't hesitate to come back here and question what you saw. I'm not asking you to just accept what I tell you. I'm trying to help you understand, and the only way to do that is to ask more questions and to challenge what you see. Enjoy, mate.

line[/hr]

More on that "chance" argument here:

http://toarchive.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

"The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance."

There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.

Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).

Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don't state the "givens," but leave them implicit in their calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with.

(One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution in the least.)

Mr Skeptic · January 3, 2009

Amusingly enough, that probability is the probability for a cell to spontaneously form. What is amusing is that it is usually creationists who make that argument, and creationists who say that not just one cell, but every species on earth, spontaneously formed. Meanwhile, evolutionists say it is a slow, incremental process that builds on what was before -- and as such, this analysis does not apply.

However, there is not a consensus on how exactly life started, making it a favorite target for people who say "God did it" is an exact explanation.

frankcox · January 5, 2009

Look, this is just ridiculous. There are several problems wrong with this approach:

1. Extant cells are incredibly complex, the protobionts of the theory of abiogenesis were analogous to genetic material in soap bubbles.

2. The components of cells have a natural affinity to each other. The same way nebula coalesce to form stars, biotic material coalesces to form a biotic system.

3. Where do these probabilities even come from in the first place? I mean, come on.

Those probabilities have been figured by several sources, , the atheist Fred Hoyle, NASA, etc. What is wrong with your approach is making these outlandish statements about imaginary primiitave cells. And the idea that biotic material coalesces to form a biotic system is a fairy tale. Give me an example? Biotic systems are specifically complex, they are ordered, planned, plans require a planner. What is this magical force you seem to believe causes this? Dead things are not affected by natural selection.

Sadly it takes a creationist to tell an evolution what his/her religious beliefs are and what they are really trying to convince themselves is a scientific theory.

Hydrogen is a colorless , odorless gas that left to itself long enough turns into planets , plants, pets , and people.

Brilliant!, Simply brilliant!

Once upon a time there was nothing, no one knows why, it was just there, then it went boom. Ain't science cool!

iNow · January 5, 2009

Those probabilities have been figured by several sources, , the atheist Fred Hoyle, NASA, etc.

<...>

Biotic systems are specifically complex, they are ordered, planned, plans require a planner.

<...>

What is this magical force you seem to believe causes this?

<...>

Sadly it takes a creationist to tell an evolution what his/her religious beliefs are and what they are really trying to convince themselves is a scientific theory.

<...>

Once upon a time there was nothing, no one knows why, it was just there, then it went boom. Ain't science cool!

In addition to abandoning the ignorance which is biblical creation stories (as they will soon be added to the ginormous graveyard which is human mythology where they belong), I also suggest you read up a bit on modern cosmology... such as what's been happening since 2002. The BB model is not some scriptural truth, and in fact, is being heavily questioned and new ideas put forward and tested.

The "magical force" is the laws of chemistry and physics. (Also, isn't it a bit of a double standard... rather hypocritical... for a creationist to say that science is relying on magical forces? )

But yeah... you could just say "god did it" and forget about learning anything more. :doh:

Last, appeal to authority is nowhere near as good as data which is meaningful and not full of fallacies (like equivocating the vast mountains of evidence in favor of evolution and those who accept that evidence as accurate and valid as some sort of "religion.") :rolleyes:

Either way, it probably doesn't matter much. You decided to make your first ever post here one in support of creationism... I don't see you lasting too long in this community.

Btw - So it doesn't look like I'm just attacking stupidity, the interested reader can find out more about abiogenesis in any number of places. Maybe look at places like this:

http://atheismblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/current-theories-of-abiogenesis.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

Edited January 5, 2009 by iNow

Mr Skeptic · January 5, 2009

And the idea that biotic material coalesces to form a biotic system is a fairy tale. Give me an example? Biotic systems are specifically complex, they are ordered, planned, plans require a planner. What is this magical force you seem to believe causes this? Dead things are not affected by natural selection.

Well, for one thing, most or all viruses are self-assembling. Mix the pieces of a virus in a fluid, and they will self-assemble into a virus. Much of the structural part of cells is also self-assembling. Cell membranes are made largely of phospholipid bilayers, which, when added to an existing membrane, naturally serve to expand the membrane due to their hydrophilic/hydrophobic nature (think soap bubbles). Structural proteins frequently self-assemble into the intended shapes (kind of like crystals, but more complex).

Sadly it takes a creationist to tell an evolution what his/her religious beliefs are and what they are really trying to convince themselves is a scientific theory.

And sadly, when the creationists try to do that, they simply show their ignorance of what science is. They inevitably try to explain, rather than predict. They can't see that the biggest problem with "God did it" is that can be used to explain anything, and therefore cannot be used to predict anything. While scientists like an explanation as much as anyone else, the lifeblood of science is prediction. For example, Newton never explained gravity, but he predicted how fast objects would fall.

Sayonara · January 5, 2009

Either way, it probably doesn't matter much. You decided to make your first ever post here one in support of creationism... I don't see you lasting too long in this community.

I like the way that on the rare occasions we ever get creationists any more, they don't for one second hold back and question the silent, foreboding lack of their buddies on this site before they plunge in with the lies.

BIOphile · January 5, 2009

As people said, complex things like cells don't just poof into existence. It's a gradual process, and while chance is involved, natural selection comes into play as well.

I kinda see a creationist as a person who hasn't had the chance to appreciate science yet. If they refuse to see the truth they probably haven't been exposed to a subject that interests them enough. They're like seeds, they need the right conditions so they can grow into a functional plant.

Sayonara · January 5, 2009

Creationists choose their crackpot beliefs. It's not some default position that people will naturally assume while they wait for something better to pique their interest.

You don't have to be nice to them. If you give creationism any credibility or quarter whatsoever, no matter how will-intentioned or benevolent, the lies win.

iNow · January 6, 2009

I don't know, Sayonara. I think a lot of it is situational... context-dependent. With me, anyway, I tend to look more at the tone of the poster than their post content on this issue. If it seems like someone with genuine desire to acquire knowledge, to come in clarify questions ("hey, I heard this, wondered about that..."), then BIOphile's comments about kindness and gentle leadership are certainly appropriate. This is especially so in real (non-internet forum) interactions, where someone is genuinely confused and needs to be "nurtured and provided the right conditions to grow."

However, as you rightly suggest, we don't generally see those types here. We run into the ridiculous religiots who assume a starting point of truth and are here to show all of us "evolutionists" (for the love of Thor, I hate that stupid word) the error of our ways. ("Oh yeah, well how about the flagella, huh! How about that! Take one part away and it doens't work... blah blah blah.")

Of course they need to be robbed of all credibility and quarter, as they WILL continue on in the circumstance of benevolence and well-intentions. I just find it warranted for us to differentiate how our response should vary between the person who claims to be spouting truth, and the one who genuinely seeks it. Cheers.

BIOphile · January 6, 2009

Thanks for seeing my point, iNow. I agree that some types are just arguing for the sake of it and those are the types that have to be dealt with harshly, but we have to see that some people genuinely want to know more, and we have the means to inform them and we should do so politely.

Back to the original poster, do you have any more questions about this topic? I'm sure people will be glad to help you.

frankcox · January 6, 2009

It never ceases to amaze me how evoutionists use so many personal attacks and so few scientific ones.

It is also amazing at how uncreative those attacks are. For instance proclaiming I am ignorant of evolution because I refuse to allow you to jut assume the first cell and in fact the first living creature because it is impossible for evolution to explain the origin of anything. Natural selection was known for eons before Charles Darwin was born and it was published in the scientific journal of the day before he wrote the first note about it.

Evolution does rely on dumb luck , actually countless incredible miracles, to explain the first cell , and or , the first creature. Dead things are not affected by natural selection so unless you can explain the first cell or the first creature the whole idea of naturalism is dead in the water.

But even if I spot you the first cell or the first animal it still cannot explain the transmutation of one animal into another such as fish to amphibians or reptiles to birds.

If evolution were true the evidence from the fossils would be so overwhelming there would be no debate but there just is no record of slow gradual change to be found. The supposedly oldest rocks contain incredibly complex creatures with no evolutionary past.

This is a prime example of the intelligence behind the argument for evolution

" and those are the types that have to be dealt with harshly,"

All you have is personal attacks and name calling because there is no argument for naturalistic origins, , all you have to offer is your blind religious belief that everything created itself and the the first cell and the first creature were "just there".

The rant that I do not understand science and the role of predictions is asinine. Evolution predicts just as Darwin said that the evidence in the fossils has to be there or his theory is null and void, he predicted that the evidence would be found, it has not yet the belief remains. Evolution is nether predicted nor explained, it is a blind religious belief. When creationists made incredible prediction on the magnetic fields of Neptune and Jupiter the secularist claimed predictions were over rated. So much for scientific objectivity.

The Bible predicts you will find animals in the rocks fully formed with no evolutionary past and that is precisely what we do find. The evidence is meaningless to the evolutionists because the interpretation is made before it is found. We find dinosaurs that are unfossilized and with blood cells and soft tissue that stinks of death and this has happened more than a few times . Evolution does not predict that at all but the evidence is perfectly in harmony with creation. But again the evolutionist is not concerned with the evidence as the theory is so flexible it will explain mutually exclusive ideas like slow gradual change and punctuated equilibrium.

When the scientists realized they had red blood cells instead of seeing the truth that they could in no way be 65 ma old they were amazed that dinosaurs could still stink after 65 ma. Brilliant. This whining and the pathetic accusations that creationists do not think and just say God did it shows the moral and scientific bankruptcy of the evolutionists. All of the major branches of science were founded by creationists, most of the great inventions in history from the printing press to the telegraph to the internal combustion engine , the germ theory of disease, antiseptic surgery, the M.R.I. , the computer, modern rocketry, the laser, as well as histories greatest scientists as well as the world's best surgeon , the man who separated twins joined at the head and pioneered incredible brain surgeries, the inventor of the M.R.I., some of the world's foremost biologist ,the world's foremost expert on computer modeling , the man N.A.S.A. trusts to monitor and warn us about volcanic eruptions and earthquakes, the scientist who invented the software that controls the world's weather satellites etc etc etc are all creationists so to claim creationists are stupid is to claim science is stupid. Despite popular myth the only survey I know of shows that 55% of scientists believe in evolution and less than half of those in the atheistic idea of it .If your best argument is that a majority believes it you have no argument, truth is not decided by committee.

It never ceases to amaze me how pathetic the argument for evolution is. No evolutionists I have ever met has been able to give me an example of a single job in science that creationists do not excel at . If evolution was true then there could be no creationists or other anti-Darwinians that could function in say biology, but there are many thousands, including some of the worlds best.

That is a direct question, name any job in science that requires a belief we descended form lower animals

Here is another example of the moral bankruptcy of the evolutionists.

" You don't have to be nice to them. If you give creationism any credibility or quarter whatsoever, no matter how will-intentioned or benevolent, the lies win."

If evolution was true why can't you politely present the argument from science? There is no argument so all you have is personal attacks. Evolutionists ALWAYS lose public debates to creationists . That is because evolution is an ancient anti-God religion, not science.

Niles Eldredge said:

"Creationists travel all over the United States, visiting

college campuses and staging `debates' with biologists,

geologists, and anthropologists. The creationists nearly

always win. "The audience is frequently loaded with the

already converted and the faithful. And scientists, until

recently, have been showing up at the debates ill-prepared

for what awaits them. Thinking the creationists are

uneducated, Bible-thumping clods, they are soon routed by a

steady onslaught of: direct attacks on a wide variety of

scientific topics. No scientist has an expert's grasp of

all the relevant points of astronomy, physics, chemistry,

biology, geology, and anthropology. Creationists today --

at least the majority of their spokesmen -- are highly

educated, intelligent people. Skilled debaters, they have

always done their homework. And they nearly always seem

better informed than their opponents, who are reduced too

often to a bewildered state of incoherence. As will be all

too evident when we examine the creationist position in

detail, their arguments are devoid of any real intellectual

content. Creationists win debates because of their canny

stage presence, and not through clarity of logic or force

of evidence. The debates are shows rather than serious

considerations of evolution.

If you read that with anything resembling an open mind Niles admits the creationists are better prepared and very intelligent and then whines that the crowds are often predominately creationists.

There is a very small amount of truth in what he says there. There used to be lot of debates at predominately secular universities and at atheist organizations like the Australian Skeptics who shot themselves in the foot by inviting on of the world's foremost biologists, Dr. Duane Gish and they were beaten so badly and reacted so rudely they were denounced by even other atheists. That was twenty years ago and to their dismay several of the skeptics were so shocked by the personal attacks that they opened their minds and are to this day working to promote Christianity through the creation ministry.

His hint that something recently has changed is just nonsense, it is almost impossile to get evolutionists to debate creationists. They are told not to ecause it gives the creationists credibility, pretty much the same thing was said here, the obvious truth is that it is a loser's limp, if evolution was true and creationists stupid as so many contend then they would jump at the chance to make them look foolish. Niles at least is honest in that regard but it makes his final statement that it is just theatrics plainly immoral. Creationists win because they are smart and they have the truth on their side.

Niles certainly understands that there is a real problem with the gradualistic explanation for evolution . Of course he was a big part of the second dumbest theory in the history of "so called' science, punctuated equilibrium. The only theory that uses the lack of evidence for one belief as evidence for another.

Here is what he said:

"Palaeobiologists flocked to these scientific visions of a world in a constant state of flux and admixture. But instead of finding the slow, smooth and progressive changes Lyell and Darwin had expected, they saw in the fossil records rapid bursts of change, new species appearing seemingly out of nowhere and then remaining unchanged for millions of years-patterns hauntingly reminiscent of creation." (Pagel M. [Research fellow, Department of Zoology and Hertford College, Oxford University], "Happy accidents?" Review of "The Pattern of Evolution" by Niles Eldredge, W.H. Freeman 1999. Nature, Vol 397, 25 February 1999, p.665)

That is the creationists argument , of course he claims evolution must have happened too fast to leave any trace.

The history of evolution excluding the time from its first recording in about

600 B.C. to the days of Chuckie D.

Darwinism _Slow gradual change_- Evolution by creeps.

Neo-Darwinism_RM+NS_ Evolution by freaks

Punctuated Absurdity_changes in isolated areas Evolution by jerks

Yet another example of the moral bankruptcy of the evolutionist.

"I like the way that on the rare occasions we ever get creationists any more, they don't for one second hold back and question the silent, foreboding lack of their buddies on this site before they plunge in with the lies. "

Probably the reason there are so few creationists here is that people like this are boring as they pose no challenge. Nothing in that statement is indicative of intelligent thought. Calling anyone who disagrees with you a liar is the action of a mental midget. It often backfires when a fence sitter sees this satanic hatred of the evolutionists toward any one who disagrees with them and causes them to question their honesty. What could be better evidence that evolution is religious than that? When do you ever see people who disagree on any other so called "scientific" theory call their opponents names like children?

Biophile I find you the least impressive. This condescending tone that creationists do not have a valid reason for their position is boring . I have yet to meet the first evolutionists who I would consider the equal of my 6th grade Sunday school class on the subject of the history of evolution. From what I see of you so far I would venture to say you are ignorant of the subject entirely. On top of that you are illogical , you are militantly ignorant of the philosophy of science and make statements that expose your general lack of common sense.

For instance:

"As people said, complex things like cells don't just poof into existence. It's a gradual process, and while chance is involved, natural selection comes into play as well. "

That is an absolutely moronic thing to say. First of all you have no way of knowing how anything comes into existence and to think they could come into existence gradually is to not think at all. Biophile no one was there at the beginning. So where does this idea of yours come from, please understand it is religious, not scientific. Science is a method of study that concentrates on thngs we can and do know and makes inferences and predictions from those when possible. There is no known law of physics that can cause matter to be created from nothing but matter exists. Therefore there is a supernatural explanation or matter has always existed. Either way it is a religious belief but which one makes sense? Why is there matter, what could cause natural laws to exists?

Most scientists believe there was a beginning based on the evidence as well as their personal beliefs. As far as your claim that living things could come into existence slowly where does that idea come from? Everything we observe says life is either there or its not. Can you give me an example ? Really, that is a mindless statement to say dead matter slowly comes to life and natural selection has something to do with it.

You are free to believe what ever you want but don't call it science. This whole argument is not based on observation, science, or logic, it is your personal religious belief, nothing more, nothing less.

Life is instantaneous and so is death. For 2500 years evolutionists taught spontaneous generation . Many fought openly with Pasteur and then Huxley renamed it abiogenesis to make it sound better. If you read the history that is what happened . Or at least read the dictionary.

Spontaneous generation or special creation are the ONLY options, always have been, always will be. All the atheists who ever lived were evolutionists and all the atheists who will ever live will be evolutionists. It is the atheist creation story, there are no exceptions. Whenever it is shown to be false you punt and make mindless statements like the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution or life forms slowly and gradually , it is absolutely absurd.

And no matter how you whine abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are the same exact thing, they are synonyms. Note the reference to Huxley,.

The American Heritage® Science Dictionary

Cite This Source

Abiogenesis

Ab`i*o*gen"e*sis\, n. [Gr. 'a priv. + ? life + ?, origin, birth.] (Biol.) The supposed origination of living organisms from lifeless matter; such genesis as does not involve the action of living parents; spontaneous generation; -- called also abiogeny, and opposed to biogenesis.

I shall call the . . . doctrine that living matter may be produced by not living matter, the hypothesis of abiogenesis. --Huxley, 1870.

a·bi·o·gen·e·sis (ā'bī-ō-jěn'ĭ-sĭs) Pronunciation Key

n. The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis, spontaneous generation.

a'bi·o·ge·net'ic (-jə-nět'ĭk), a'bi·o·ge·net'i·cal adj., a'bi·o·ge·net'i·cal·ly adv., a'bi·og'e·nist (-ŏj'ə-nĭst) n.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Cite This Source

abiogenesis

noun

a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter

Cite This Source

abiogenesis (ā'bī-ō-jěn'ĭ-sĭs) Pronunciation Key

See spontaneous generation.

a·bi·o·gen·e·sis (ā'bī-ō-jěn'ĭ-sĭs) Pronunciation Key

n. The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis, spontaneous generation.

a'bi·o·ge·net'ic (-jə-nět'ĭk), a'bi·o·ge·net'i·cal adj., a'bi·o·ge·net'i·cal·ly adv., a'bi·og'e·nist (-ŏj'ə-nĭst) n.

spontaneous generation

n. See abiogenesis.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Cite This Source

spontaneous generation

noun

a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter [syn: abiogenesis]

Cite This Source

spontaneous generation

The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter, as maggots from rotting meat. The theory of spontaneous generation for larger organisms was easily shown to be false, but the theory was not fully discredited until the mid-19th century with the demonstration of the existence and reproduction of microorganisms, most notably by Louis Pasteur. Also called abiogenesis.

The American Heritage® Science Dictionary

Cite This Source

Main Entry: spontaneous generation

Function: noun

: ABIOGENESIS

Cite This Source

Mr Skeptic · January 6, 2009

It never ceases to amaze me how evoutionists use so many personal attacks and so few scientific ones.

Then again, creationists don't frequently use valid scientific arguments, nor for that matter, to listen to them.

It is also amazing at how uncreative those attacks are. For instance proclaiming I am ignorant of evolution because I refuse to allow you to jut assume the first cell and in fact the first living creature because it is impossible for evolution to explain the origin of anything.

Exactly. Charles Darwin never attempted to explain the origin of the first cell. I think he attributed the first cell to God. His book was "The Origin of Species", not "The Origin of Life". It is unfair to criticize a theory for things unrelated to the theory. It would be like me rejecting the idea that God created life, because you can't explain how God evolved.

Natural selection was known for eons before Charles Darwin was born and it was published in the scientific journal of the day before he wrote the first note about it.

True. What of it?

Evolution does rely on dumb luck , actually countless incredible miracles, to explain the first cell , and or , the first creature. Dead things are not affected by natural selection so unless you can explain the first cell or the first creature the whole idea of naturalism is dead in the water.

No, that is called abiogenesis. If you intend to criticize abiogenesis, then there is no need to even mention evolution.

As for dead things, some of them are affected by natural selection. Viruses are not considered to be alive, and yet they are affected by natural selection. Computer code is also not considered alive, yet it can be affected by selection -- eg when people use evolutionary algorithms to design something. The trouble comes from people who think that being alive and not alive are opposite extremes; instead there is a continuum.

If evolution were true the evidence from the fossils would be so overwhelming there would be no debate but there just is no record of slow gradual change to be found. The supposedly oldest rocks contain incredibly complex creatures with no evolutionary past.

Isn't that exactly what the fossil record shows?

Theories are not judged in a vacuum, they are judged based on how they compare to the other theories. It is much easier to criticize a theory than to support your own. Seeing as you asked for some scientific arguments, here are some. I highlighted them so you don't miss them.

On the other hand, if Noah's Ark were true, then there would be a maximum of 4 alleles for "unclean" animals and 14 alleles for "clean" animals, and a maximum of 10 alleles for humans. That is a direct requirement given the limitation on genetic data that Noah could preserve, and last I checked there are far more alleles than that. Creationism cannot explain where these alleles come from; evolution can.

Also, why would God embed retroviruses throughout our lineage in the pattern expected by common ancestry? In fact, why would God embed retroviruses in our DNA at all? Evolution explains and even expects this, but creationism not so much.

It never ceases to amaze me how pathetic the argument for evolution is.

That's pretty much how science works. The theory has to fit the data, the theory has to make good predictions. That is as much as any theory needs. If it fits the data and make predictions, why would there need to be an argument for it? Back in the days of Aristotle they tried to argue for and against theories, and that didn't work out so well.

That is a direct question, name any job in science that requires a belief we descended form lower animals

You don't have to believe science to do it. I can believe that electricity does not exist, and that wouldn't stop me from doing calculations with Maxwell's equations if I needed to. However, a lack of belief in something that should be obvious is rather suspicious.

If evolution was true why can't you politely present the argument from science?

Why would a creationist listen to a scientific argument? Are you willing to even allow for the possibility that your God might not exist?

----

Lastly about the whole "creationists are dumb" issue. That is simply ridiculous; being wrong about something hardly makes anyone dumb, especially if it is something they were taught as kids and never really questioned. I was once a creationist, and I did not become any smarter when I converted from that belief. At most you people could say that they are ignorant, and remember that ignorance is not necessarily a bad thing. I am ignorant of high level theoretical chemistry, string theory, and countless other things, because I have studied different things. That someone is ignorant of a portion of biology is not a terrible thing. And a creationist would have to spend quite some time studying biology before it would be unreasonable for him to believe creationism.

Edited January 6, 2009 by Mr Skeptic
afterthoughts

npts2020 · January 6, 2009

frankcox; I would like to see your sources for the assertion that a significant percentage of scientists do not believe in evolution, since I happen to know a few people who make a living as scientists and all of them believe in evolution. Furthermore I would like to know where you get the notion that creationists generally "win" debates with evolutionists about the subject of human origins. The most recent debate in a neutral arena I am aware of where there was a "winner" decided was Kitzmiller vs. Dover board of education. In that debate, the intelligent design (or creationists if you prefer) were represented pro bono by the Thomas More Law Center which has over 300 lawyers working for them. What do you suppose the outcome of that debate in court was? Were those 300+ lawyers unable to understand the subject matter well enough to adequately present the intelligent design side of the debate? The problem with saying the gods created everything is that it doesnt try to explain any mechanism for how he/she/they/it accomplished such a thing. That is where evolution comes in. Evolution only describes a process and allows the large percentage of scientists who are religiously inclined to both believe in evolution and their religious precepts. I have never met a person who believes in creationism or intelligent design who is not deeply religious. Finally, I would say with pretty fair certainty that nothing you have said in the preceding diatribe disproves the ideas of evolution, abiogenesis, or natural selection. The more studies that are done, the more secure those ideas have become not the other way around.

Sayonara · January 6, 2009

It never ceases to amaze me how evoutionists use so many personal attacks and so few scientific ones.

...snip...

" You don't have to be nice to them. If you give creationism any credibility or quarter whatsoever, no matter how will-intentioned or benevolent, the lies win."

If evolution was true why can't you politely present the argument from science? There is no argument so all you have is personal attacks.

Utter bollocks.

Take five minutes out of your schedule, just five minutes, to search these very forums, and I promise you will find thread after thread after thread where myself and other very well qualified members have tirelessly debated creationists in discussions which lasted dozens if not hundreds of posts.

The reasons you are getting "personal attacks" is that you couldn't be bothered to check this site out properly before you came here to sneer at evolutionists. Everything we are going to say on the evolution versus religion "debate" we have already said. Your laziness is the only barrier to you seeing that.

I put "personal attacks" in quotes, because it is not a personal attack as such. It is an attack on the underhand tactics that the internet creationist tide teaches its followers. Since i have never met you I hope you realise the difference, just as I hope iNow realises I intended to refer to those creationists who make the effort to seek out science forums just so that they can decry our efforts to understand the way life works.

Much of the rest of your post is the same lies and misinformation we have seen and crushed time and time again. Change the record. You are not going to reinvigorate the creationist cause just by re-dressing some of its failed arguments and trying to sound more authoritative than the average footsoldier.

Show some evidence that you have read the extensive library of evolution versus special creation threads on this forum in your next post, because we will quickly grow tired of you if you do not.

BTW, American Heritage and Merriam-Websters (pfft) are emphatically not pan-discipline technical references.

iNow · January 6, 2009

I put "personal attacks" in quotes, because it is not a personal attack as such. It is an attack on the underhand tactics that the internet creationist tide teaches its followers. Since i have never met you I hope you realise the difference, just as I hope iNow realises I intended to refer to those creationists who make the effort to seek out science forums just so that they can decry our efforts to understand the way life works.

There was never a shadow of a doubt. I was just trying to make sure that Biophile (being new here) understood the true intention of our posts, as kindness does have a place in society, just not really in this specific arena (where the negative, poisoned, and blinded tone is so blaringly obvious). I think that much of this was made clear when what's his face creationist just spit all over everyone without realizing we've done this before (hint: there's a reason that people who accept evolution don't tend to bother debating with creationists). What I find funniest is how he conflates evolution with abiogenesis, even though the two are not the same (as already noted by Mr Skeptic). It's like he's saying the theory of gravity must be false because it doesn't explain germs.

Either way, I wonder how long we'll allow this "alternative worldview" to distract us from the truth and from helping the person who opened the thread to get answers which are not lies grouned in some iron age fairy tale.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

It never ceases to amaze me how pathetic the argument for evolution is. No evolutionists I have ever met has been able to give me an example of a single job in science that creationists do not excel at . If evolution was true then there could be no creationists or other anti-Darwinians that could function in say biology, but there are many thousands, including some of the worlds best.

That is a direct question, name any job in science that requires a belief we descended form lower animals

I am nearly certain that the groups who come up with each year's flu vaccine require an acceptance of evolution through natural selection.

Do I win a prize? Maybe a cookie? :rolleyes:

Yet another example of the moral bankruptcy of the evolutionist.

<...>

Probably the reason there are so few creationists here is that people like this are boring as they pose no challenge. Nothing in that statement is indicative of intelligent thought. Calling anyone who disagrees with you a liar is the action of a mental midget.

<...>

Biophile I find you the least impressive. This condescending tone that creationists do not have a valid reason for their position is boring . I have yet to meet the first evolutionists who I would consider the equal of my 6th grade Sunday school class on the subject of the history of evolution.

<...>

From what I see of you so far I would venture to say you are ignorant of the subject entirely. On top of that you are illogical , you are militantly ignorant of the philosophy of science and make statements that expose your general lack of common sense.

You know, for someone who opened their post railing against insults instead of argument, you sure don't exactly lead by example, and you strike me as a bit of a hypocrit here. I'm not trying to insult you, simply make an observation of facts.

Edited January 6, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive post/s merged.

frankcox · January 7, 2009

"scientists who are religiously inclined to both believe in evolution and their religious precepts. I have never met a person who believes in creationism or intelligent design who is not deeply religious. Finally, I would say with pretty fair certainty that nothing you have said in the preceding diatribe disproves the ideas of evolution, abiogenesis, or natural selection. The more studies that are done, the more secure those ideas have become not the other way around"

No offense but you seem to have no concept of the argument against evolution. You have been brainwashed into believing creationist do not accept natural selection when they published the theory before Darwin made the first note on the subject. Natural selection is a scientific fact but it is a sorting mechanism, not a creative force to replace God. As far as studies on spontaneous generation , or if you prefer the synonym, abiogenesis , they have all been demolished by evolutionists themselves. You have to believe there was a precursor to DNA, there is no evidence , if so lets have it.

All scientists are religious , all humans are. You need to quit equating religion with strickly Christianity. Believing in spontaneous generation is just as religious , if not more so. There are only 2 theories, either we are a special creation of God or we are a product of spontaneous generation leading to evolution, there is no third theory.

All atheists who have ever lived , are living now, or will ever live have to believe in some form of evolution. Aside from Christianity and Orthodox Judaism all religions promote some form of evolution, they claim matter pre-existed intelligence. I find that idea absurd.

There are I.D. advocates , Francis Crick of D.N.A. fame was one, who are confirmed atheists so he was deeply religious but anti-Christian.

It seems you are trying to say that Christians who believe the Bible are not real scientist but the facts say they are if anything superior.

It is a cop out to try and seperate evolution from the atheistic ideas of cosmic origin and SG. Evolution is a worldview, an explanation of the universe without God. It is a wiggle word. When you are forced to defend the scientifically absurd idea of SG you demand that people accept that the first cell and the first creature were just there. Once you remove SG and transmutation from evolution all you have is Natural Selection , adaptation.

Evolution is claimed to be the creative force that turned pondscum into people. Natural Selection is a sorting mechanism. Only God can create.

Of course I will be banned for saying that as this site demands only atheistic explanations, no matter how unscientific they are.

The more we study the rocks the more we find catastrophe. All of Darwin's claims about the Santa Cruz river are denounced by modern geology which recognizes the features he claimed proved millions of years as ice age, the Scablands and the Grand Coulee are attributed to post ice age floods, even the Scottish shore that Hutton first used to sell the idea of Uniformitarianism has been re-interpreted as catastrophe. There were more claimed transistionals in Darwin day than today and there is not one single fossil that even all evolutionists agree is transistional, if so name it.

What you said about evidence is simply untrue, evolutionists cannot decide between Neo-Darwinism and P.E.

iNow · January 7, 2009

How religion poisons everything.

padren · January 7, 2009

Frankcox, if you do get banned, it won't be because you are a creationist - you may not believe it but there are religious people on these forums who are very well respected.

It'll be because you have a tendency to preach instead of discuss, and insult the people here. You did not acquire your contempt for atheists and evolutionist from this site - you brought that baggage with you.

If you want to have an open, honest discussion you have to check that stuff at the door, and if you just want to tell us how you think it really is you honestly needn't bother, as there are millions of people with millions of views on the internet more than happy to tell us how it really is just a click away on a million different websites.

**mooeypoo** · January 7, 2009

Then again, if Noah's Ark is true, then god rearranged the strata on purpose, since what we actually find DOESN'T fit a mass-drowning in such a scale, nor does it fit a 4000 year old planet.

Either god's playing tricks on purpose to *TRY* and get everyone to disbelieve the bible - which would make him intentionally evil and unkind (and wherever the bible says the opposite would make the bible a lie) - or the bible's not an accurate depiction of the truth.

Take your pick.

Now, that said, we've already been through this. Unlike what you may think, you're not the only anti-science poster ever on this forum that ignored the rules (perhaps you should re read them) and tried to hijack valid scientific questions for the sake of their own religious preaching.

What I find most amusing with such, is that if a Muslim, Hindu or Jew does the same tactics, suddenly your "logical capacities" return, and you begin demanding vigor.

I suggest you go over the rules of the forum, refresh yourself on what logical fallacies are and how to avoid them, and reconsider the purpose of this forum. If you still insist on acting against all the above three, then perhaps you should leave to a more gullible, less scientific, less fact-demanding forum.

Sign In

Evolution Question

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

iNow

iNow

BIOphile

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Important Information