[Tj3]

Well, I haven't discussed the origin of cells stuff, but I have discussed the evidence for evolution extensively on this forum. But I haven't got very good responses to actual science, and since this is, bafflingly, still the "religious discussions" board, I hesitate to get into it here.

I trust that you will note that when we discuss the topic of evolution that, even though I am a Christian, the scientific evidence is so much ion concert with scripture that I rarely if ever find it necessary to use anything by science itself to refute evolutionists. It is evolutionists that usually retire into faith when the evidence cannot support their beliefs.

I'll start a separate thread sometime in Science called What is the Evidence for Evolution and we can take that up there. And maybe one for biogenesis as well. Would that be good?

Feel free to do so. I am sure that you will get some interesting discussions!

[michealb]

I trust that you will note that when we discuss the topic of evolution that, even though I am a Christian, the scientific evidence is so much ion concert with scripture that I rarely if ever find it necessary to use anything by science itself to refute evolutionists. It is evolutionists that usually retire into faith when the evidence cannot support their beliefs.

What you are trying to say is "I'm the most intelligent person on the planet and even though the vast majority of people who have studied this come to a different conclusion you should listen to me because I am the smartest person on the intertubes." Sounds silly saying it that way doesn't it but that is exactly what you are saying.

I could say I have a PHD in biology from MIT, I could even go as far as to say my name is Stephanie Capaldi who if you look you find that she currently teaches there, but if my content doesn't back it up, I just sound stupid. There are lots of ways that creation could be presented as a scientific theory and if any of them were valid they would be peer reviewed theories. Almost everything that is post from creationist is meant to confuse the public who barely has any scientific knowledge and all of it is considered drivel by anyone who has actually studied.

Your religion has come to an evolutionary dead end so to speak on this issue.

Seems we have come full circle

[Tj3]

What you are trying to say is "I'm the most intelligent person on the planet and even though the vast majority of people who have studied this come to a different conclusion you should listen to me because I am the smartest person on the intertubes." Sounds silly saying it that way doesn't it but that is exactly what you are saying.

Now note. Rather than dealing with the scientific questions that I raise, you have brought forward the following points:

1) You initiate an attack against my character because I disagree with you.
2) You say that I must be wrong because I don't agree with many other people who you happen to agree with - you must believe that the majority is always right also, correct?
3) The fact that thousands of scientists do not agree with you means that they must be wrong because,. well, they disagree with you.

Sigh! Please let me know when you are ready to get off your high horse and deal with the issue.

[inthebox]

Science moves closer to artificial life - Nation - Kentucky.com

They've already accomplished some steps needed to construct a simple, single-celled organism that's capable of evolving and reproducing itself, basic requirements for life...


Other experts, however, said it might take decades or centuries before scientists would be able to ”create life from scratch,“ as the quest is colloquially known...



So far, what they're doing is more like copying nature's clever tricks than creating new life forms in the laboratory, with all the tremendous philosophical, social and religious issues that such a stunning feat would imply.


”Creating artificial life is very different from reproducing what existed already in nature,“ said Eckhard Wimmer, a microbiologist at Stony Brook University on Long Island, NY. ”That (artificial life) may be possible in the future, but this future may be hundreds of years away.“ ...

Of a plan to construct what they call a ”minimal cell“ containing only 151 genes. That's far fewer than the smallest natural microorganism, which has nearly 500.

Church said that biologists studying synthesis didn't claim to be creating living organisms by ”going from nothing to something.“ Instead, he said ”nearly all such projects are inspired by existing molecules.“

A fascinating article, don't you think?

All these intelligent scientists trying to design artificial life.

It is amazing to think that this was just "nature's clever trick," while never defining what nature is or how nature accomplished this.

[michealb]

1) You initiate an attack against my character because I disagree with you

I don't attack your character I'm debating whether you have the background knowledge to understand the answers given to you many times. I am also debating whether you have a bias towards one answer the prevents you from seeing the evidence fairly.

2) You say that I must be wrong because I don't agree with many other people who you happen to agree with - you must believe that the majority is always right also, correct?

I'm saying you must be wrong because of the majority of the people who are qualified to understand the evidence say you are wrong. Also there isn't a shred of credible evidence for any other theory out there. I don't believe the majority is always correct but I feel that if your in the minority is is up to you to prove your idea.

3) The fact that thousands of scientists do not agree with you means that they must be wrong because,. well, they disagree with you.

It has nothing to do with what I think like you, I'm just a smuck on the internet. What matters is 100 years of scientific research that has all pointed towards evolution. Not once has a fossil EVER been discovered that doesn't agree with evolution. Research that is so good that no one disagrees with it, except for people that are trying to push a religious agenda.

[Tj3]

I don't attack your character I'm debating whether you have the background knowledge to understand the answers given to you many times. I am also debating whether you have a bias towards one answer the prevents you from seeing the evidence fairly.

No, just because I disagree with you, each time you attack me. If you don't feel the need to do so, just stick to the issue at hand, and don't go after the people.

2) You say that I must be wrong because I don't agree with many other people who you happen to agree with - you must believe that the majority is always right also, correct?

I'm saying you must be wrong because of the majority of the people who are qualified to understand the evidence say you are wrong. Also there isn't a shred of credible evidence for any other theory out there. I don't believe the majority is always correct but I feel that if your in the minority is is up to you to prove your idea.

So, if you don't believe that the majority is always right, why do you feel that anyone who does not agree with what you believe to be the majority view is automatically wrong?

And if you are willing to discuss a topic on the basis of its merits, why can we not get you to stay on the topic?

3) The fact that thousands of scientists do not agree with you means that they must be wrong because,. well, they disagree with you.

It has nothing to do with what I think like you, I'm just a smuck on the internet. What matters is 100 years of scientific research that has all pointed towards evolution. Not once has a fossil EVER been discovered that doesn't agree with evolution. Research that is so good that no one disagrees with it, except for people that are trying to push a religious agenda.

If you really believe that, why don't you just stop attacking the people and let the truth come to light?

[michealb]

Science moves closer to artificial life - Nation - Kentucky.com



A fascinating article, don't you think?

All these intelligent scientists trying to design artificial life.

It is amazing to think that this was just "nature's clever trick," while never defining what nature is or how nature accomplished this.

The problem is that lifes occurrence had a laboratory the size of the entire universe and 14 billion years in order for everything to randomly come together perfectly in order to form. So even if it is extremely unlikely for it to occur it had some very extreme conditions to brute force the solution.

Imagine if you are trying to open a combination lock. Scientists are putting in numbers that are likely to be the correct combination waiting for the click and saving the right numbers as they move on to the next. The universe on the other hand has the time and equipment to randomly try every combination until it works. It got it right once in 14 billion years as far as we know, maybe in another 14 billions years the universe will give birth so some other form of life.

[michealb]

let the truth come to light?

Okay what is the over whelming evidence that creationism fits the facts at hand?
Where is the proof that new information can't be added by mutation? (Point to the experiment that show no new information being added)
Show proof that natural secelection can not occur?
Prove with a repeatable experiment that god exists and interacts with this world directly.
Give at least one proven case of a super natural occurrence happening.

[inthebox]

From the article - The smallest micro-organism has 500 genes.

How many millions of base pairs to get it exactly right.

Put it in a cell

With ribosomes

With RNA

With amino acids .


Each step is a necessary ingredient.

Each ingredient takes what kind of chance to actually be formed?

In the right place,

At the right time,

Interacting with each other in precisely the right manor,

And the genetic code has to be spot on to get the right amino acids in the right sequence to form even a single protein.

Standard Biology 101 stuff;)


That is why these intelligent scientists did not know if it would take decades or centuries, to design an artificial cell. :)

[michealb]

HIV has just nine genes...

[inthebox]

HIV or other viruses cannot exist as a "first" organism because without a host's nuclear machinery, they cannot reproduce.

[asking]

3) The fact that thousands of scientists do not agree with you means that they must be wrong because,.... well, they disagree with you.

There are not thousands of biologists who don't believe in evolutionary biology. You might just as well argue that there are thousands of physicists who don't believe in physics. I doubt you could come up with any practicing biologists who would say that. You might find someone who pretends to have studied biology but has never published a paper in a respectable journal, or you might find a handful of biochemists. But an actual biologist who has done field work on populations of plants or animals? Probably not one.

[Credendovidis]

From the article - The smallest micro-organism has 500 genes.

Totally irrelevant as to the origin of the first cell. We have no idea how complicated that one was.

That first cell was most probable incredibly simple by today's standards. Nobody knows how simple it was. But remember that there were no enemies, there was ample food, and the conditions were tops for it to survive and multiply. Most probably even only by means of RNA.
Crystline clay model research indicates even that early life can have existed and multiplied on an even simpler basis than RNA, and have only later introduced RNA and later again DNA into it's multiplication sequence.

It is ridiculous after 2.500.000.000 years and trillions times trilions times trillions times trillions times trilions times trillions (etc.) of generations to refer to today's cell standards and requirements and extrapolate that back to the first cells.

===

It is logical and to be expected that in view of the time in between and the lack of fossile evidence the exact actual sequence of abiogenesis will never exceed the level of hypothesis.
But however interesting this discussion on abiogenesis is, it has nothing to do with evolution.
And it has even less to do with religion and it's creation claim. For that and everything involved no valid support has been forthcoming for over several thousands of years, other than by BELIEF.

And THAT you also know, and it is precisely the reason for your aggressive and negative approach towards evolution.

:rolleyes:

·

[Tj3]

There are not thousands of biologists who don't believe in evolutionary biology.

Well now I don't believe that you have ever checked into this. Are you not aware of the books written by scientists in this field? Are you not aware of the thousands of scientists who have publicly come out against evolution? Are you not aware of the Discovery Institute?

[inthebox]

Totally irrelevant as to the origin of the first cell. We have no idea[/B] how complicated that one was.

That first cell was most probable incredibly simple by today's standards. Nobody knows how simple it was. But remember that there were no enemies, there was ample food, and the conditions were tops for it to survive and multiply. Most probably even only by means of RNA.
Crystline clay model research indicates even that early life can have existed and multiplied on an even simpler basis than RNA, and have only later introduced RNA and later again DNA into it's multiplication sequence.

It is ridiculous after 2.500.000.000 years and trillions times trilions times trillions times trillions times trilions times trillions (etc.) of generations to refer to todays cell standards and requirements and extrapolate that back to the first cells.

===

It is logical and to be expected that in view of the time in between and the lack of fossile evidence the exact actual sequence of abiogenesis will never exceed the level of hypothesis.
But however interesting this discussion on abiogenesis is, it has nothing to do with evolution.
And it has even less to do with religion and it's creation claim. For that and everything involved no valid support has been forthcoming for over several thousands of years, other than by BELIEF.

And THAT you also know, and it is precisely the reason for your aggressive and negative approach towards evolution.

You start by saying nobody knows, then proceed to assume conditions at the beginning based on clay models? :confused: Talk about logic non-sequitors. ;)

Whoa, I thought evolution had all the answers? Or is that based on the "extrapolations," that you consider "ridiculous." :D


I agree with you though, it is about belief.

[michealb]

Okay what is the over whelming evidence that creationism fits the facts at hand?
Where is the proof that new information can't be added by mutation? (Point to the experiment that show no new information being added)
Show proof that natural secelection can not occur?
Prove with a repeatable experiment that god exists and interacts with this world directly.
Give at least one proven case of a super natural occurrence happening.

[asking]

It is ridiculous after 2.500.000.000 years and trillions times trilions times trillions times trillions times trilions times trillions (etc.) of generations to refer to todays cell standards and requirements and extrapolate that back to the first cells.

Yes. It's been argued that if the first cell appeared today, it would be gobbled up by another cell or animal in seconds or minutes, having no defenses whatever against voracious modern life.

[asking]

Well now I don't believe that you have ever checked into this. Are you not aware of the books written by scientists in this field? Are you not aware of the thousands of scientists who have publicly come out against evolution? Are you not aware of the Discovery Institute?

I have checked on this. There are a bare handful of creationists with any actual training and participation in biology (and I am excluding other fields, like physics and engineering, because that does not teach you biology). Behe is a biochemist. Wells was a theologian and got a PhD at Berkeley specifically in order to find information to undermine evolution--which he has stated. He got in few potshots against poorly edited textbooks, but not against evolution itself. And he has not made any interesting points in a long, long time. In any case, despite his PhD, he is certainly not a practicing biologist. Perhaps you can dig out a few more examples. But these are not biologists in the sense of people who regularly do research, get published in main stream journals (on any topic in biology, not just evolution), get tenure, and make it into prestigious scientific organizations such as the national academy of sciences.

You may plead that your guys are being discriminated against, but scientists who have been discriminated against have a rich history of finding an audience of other scientists (usually younger ones) for legitimate scientific arguments. Sooner or later someone listens and gets it. Creationists have had 150 years to persuade legitimate biologists that they have a case, with no success. You have no persuasive arguments either bolstering an alternate theory that accounts for all the evidence, nor any good arguments for why the current theory might be wrong. So far, all the arguments I've seen here in the last year have either come from ignorance or misinterpretation, at best.

[Tj3]

Okay what is the over whelming evidence that creationism fits the facts at hand?

Have a gander at Michael Behe's latest book, "The Edge of Evolution" and then let's discuss.

[Tj3]

I have checked on this. There are a bare handful of creationists with any actual training and participation in biology (and I am excluding other fields, like physics and engineering, because that does not teach you biology).

Odd that you limit it to creationists, but it does not matter because you have not said where you are looking, and your information is clearly in error.

Behe is a biochemist.

Do you know what biochemists do? Do you also know that he is not a creationist?

Wells was a theologian and got a PhD at Berkeley specifically in order to find information to undermine evolution--which he has stated. He got in few potshots against poorly edited textbooks, but not against evolution itself.

Who is Wells?