True, evolution in the modern sense is not the same as abiogenesis. However, to separate the two is way too convenient. Abiogenesis is a "logos" that unfortunately sheilds many evolutionists from having to deal with the massively imporobable nature of evolution itself. It doesn't prevent one, though, from having to connect the dots from the beginning of life on the planet to where we are now in the midst of observable biology. The fascination with evolution no doubt stems from the fascination with origin, and if evolution were ever observed the field of abiogenesis would certainly not be around for long.
I think you've dismissed probability far to simplistically. For instance, if there have been trillions of permutations and as such billions of mutations over the years, we should be tripping over transitional forms in our back yard as each stage of a new, propogating transitional form would then again need to go through trillions of permutations before arriving at one new beneficial or new peice of information. Arriving at an entirely new species should provide us with such a rich fossil record that we would without question have a scientific law on our hands.
Appealing to authority? I was reponding to your comments that there was basically scientific consensus on evolution. I was just countering what was your appeal to authority.
If you look at evolutionary theory as it has "evolved" over the last 25 years or so, you will find there have been many flaws that require it to redefine itself as a science. As observations become more perplexing, the scope gets broader and broader. For example evolution WAS abiogenesis until our origin became problematic to explain and it became it's own logos. Evolution has always been considered a species moving forward, but since we've never observed new, usable, beneficial information being added to a species, the definition was conveniently made that evolution is ANY change at all. In order to survive evolutionary theory has had to become increasingly microscopic as the major and most obvious questions have become impossible to answer.
Trust me, I've read all the critical anaylsis of the bombardier beetle on both sides, and I've come away with this: Both sides ask the other for imagination. The question is, which one is more probable to you? I simply can't conceive of non-intelligent DNA randomly "conferring," as you say, the ability to use these two chemicals as a defense mechanism. I really must say that an evolutionist trying to explain how this could have occurred is it's own form of entertainment. The creationists definitely have a leg up on this one because it frankly makes much more sense that there was a design in mind. The big bang is similar. Believing that an infinitessimally small bit of infinitely dense mass that not even time could escape from suddenly explodes into the known universe of its own accord is every bit as beleif oriented that something or someone willed it into being.
Interestingly, I've had a reverse experience to yours. I was an evolutionist who, through sifting through information over the years, has discovered that evolutionary science does not come even close to a convincing argument for it's status in the scientific world.
It is an incorrect statement that microbiology depends one iota on evolutionary theory. Of course much of the observations are seen through that lens, but it is no more directed by evolution than any other field of science. Observation of any kinda is never dependent on current theory; In fact, it is observation that buries them when incorrect.
As far as a religious agenda, of course many do have that agenda, and one of my pet peeves are anti-evolutionists that use the Bible or Christian theology as if it were an argument. I think it's a big reason why many like yourself do not search out science on the other side, because frankly, why would you? If it weren't for creation science, however, we'd still be wondering why a human fetus appears to have gills and a tail! That being said, many scientists have as their life goal the pro
Trust me, the government has bigger fish to fry than trying to get on Wikipedia and influence some would-be info searchers. Nobody cites Wikipedia as a viable resource for news and information regarding partisan issues, precisely because everyone knows whoever writes the article is going to be biased one way or the other.
Whoever called this a resource war is off their rocker. If all the government was interested in were oil, we wouldn't stage a multi-billion dollar war and strain our relationship with allies in the process, we'd drill in Anwar and be done with it. Besides which we only get about 8% of our oil from the area in question. AND it doesn't help anyone's oil buddies as evidenced by the Gulf War when all the blood for oil chronies were proved wrong in the wake of oil companies losing profits because of the whole situation. That being said, since we're there, of course it would be naive to assume that didn't factor into the plans; anyone in the same situation would do the same.
As I said, an additional nucleotide is not new information. A nucleotide is a nucleotide is a nucleotide. In order for the first protoplasm to become any of the modern species it had to do much more than simply become multiples of itself. Someone born with 6 fingers does not have additional DNA from someone with 5.
As far as influenza goes, as I explained before, a particular strain becomes resistent because a mutated version that does not secrete the common enzyme targeted by an anti-body are the only ones to survive. They have not created new information, they've in fact lost information that has, in effect made them more resistent (this is in a nutshell). If I have to qualify myself scientifically then I expect you to do the same. Please explain to me how you think influenza has evolved and tell me the new information created by mutations within a strain. Until you can do this you are not on solid ground to disagree what I'm saying.
There is an unbeleivable amount of science refuting evolution out there. More and more secular scientists every year are abandoning eveolution precisely because if it's inability to fill in its own holes. Just dealing with the science of probability begins to unravel evolution fairly quickly. The probability of the first protoplasm coming into existence is un unwriteable number to 1; that's even assuming there was a place on earth at the time with all available amino acids necessary combined with water, the natural rate of adaption tripled, and no oxygen in the atmosphere (which is against what we know geologically), plus many other factors assumed in it's favor. You can find mathematical studies on this via the probablity research institute among others. Evolution also has a very difficult time explaining symbiotic relationships found in many ecosystems, and, as creationists point out, it cannot explain how an organism such as the bombardier beetle could have evolved without destroying itself. Cliche, but poignant.
The microbilogical field is also brimming with dissenters given knowlege gained over the last 20 years or so especially surrounding the nature of the relationship of differenet systems within a particular organism. Just the way our blood clots is so different from our supposed ancestors that it appears any slight change would destroy any mutation that went down that road.
I wasn't making an ad hominem argument, because I didn't use your apparent dislike for creationism as a reason that I disagreed with you. I simply pointed it out. I do enjoy discussing this issue, and I'm glad you've stuck around, usually people have no idea what they're talking about and start making short derogatory comments hoping that others will come to their rescue!
Maybe 10% of creationist or evolutionary scientists I have had contact with are not agenda driven and do not have tunnel vision. Most on either side are woefully unaware of the science on the other side; which, if we are to ever have intelligent discussions about the issue we must consider all anlges. Evolutionists should consider the question of creation and objectively observe whether the peices fit and creationists should consider evolution in the same way. As someone who has really looked at both sides, scientific observation I must say is not very kind to evolution.
Firstly, Crick was not a creationist. He was actually one of the propogators of panspermia. Even if he were a creationist I find it surprising that you would automatically dismiss his opinion. That's not very scientifically honest.
An added nucleotide is not added information. It is replication of identical information. I never said additive mutations didn't exist. I said mutations that resulted in NEW DNA information don't exist. This is a big reason why evolution has not been proved. I don't expect you to give me an example of new DNA being created by a mutation because it's not out there as far as anyone knows or has observed.
I never said anything about creation, you're putting agruments in my mouth. The fact that you so quickly jumped to the conclusion that I was talking about creation makes me think that maybe you haven't given any creedence to any other science you may be afraid of. I encourage you to maybe familiarize yourself with some of the arguments of non-evolutionists. The question of our origin is far too important to pigeon hole yourself before considering all the scientific data out there. (P.S. - Most science is agenda-oriented on any side of the issue whether we like it or not.)
Replication errors are not evolution. If influenza were not simply rearranging or losing information but creating it, we would have Evolutionary Law as opposed to Evolutionary Theory. There are many things which appear to have evolved or appear to be evolving like influenza, but the fact is that they are not. There is nothing in observable science that can be confirmed to be a gain of DNA information! And if Francis Crick (discoverer of DNA) is correct, it is impossible.
Actually it doesn't. And I was waiting for someone to point that out. The mutation of influenza is, in fact a loss of information that renders it protected from a specific anti-body that targets one of its specific enzymes. Please go research it and get back to me. If a gain of functional DNA had been observed in a mutation it would be world wide news and dominate scientific headlines. I'm not saying it disproves evolution, but I'm saying we haven't seen it.
Adaptation is NOT evolution. Evolution is a mutation associated with a new permutation of a species in which there is additional DNA information. In other words, not a rearranging or loss of current DNA imposed by some environmental factor as we see with adaption. Even Darwin understood this difference. Incidentally, there has never been in observable science an example of a gain of different DNA information within any species, let alone humans.
Slashdot Mirror
True, evolution in the modern sense is not the same as abiogenesis. However, to separate the two is way too convenient. Abiogenesis is a "logos" that unfortunately sheilds many evolutionists from having to deal with the massively imporobable nature of evolution itself. It doesn't prevent one, though, from having to connect the dots from the beginning of life on the planet to where we are now in the midst of observable biology. The fascination with evolution no doubt stems from the fascination with origin, and if evolution were ever observed the field of abiogenesis would certainly not be around for long. I think you've dismissed probability far to simplistically. For instance, if there have been trillions of permutations and as such billions of mutations over the years, we should be tripping over transitional forms in our back yard as each stage of a new, propogating transitional form would then again need to go through trillions of permutations before arriving at one new beneficial or new peice of information. Arriving at an entirely new species should provide us with such a rich fossil record that we would without question have a scientific law on our hands. Appealing to authority? I was reponding to your comments that there was basically scientific consensus on evolution. I was just countering what was your appeal to authority. If you look at evolutionary theory as it has "evolved" over the last 25 years or so, you will find there have been many flaws that require it to redefine itself as a science. As observations become more perplexing, the scope gets broader and broader. For example evolution WAS abiogenesis until our origin became problematic to explain and it became it's own logos. Evolution has always been considered a species moving forward, but since we've never observed new, usable, beneficial information being added to a species, the definition was conveniently made that evolution is ANY change at all. In order to survive evolutionary theory has had to become increasingly microscopic as the major and most obvious questions have become impossible to answer. Trust me, I've read all the critical anaylsis of the bombardier beetle on both sides, and I've come away with this: Both sides ask the other for imagination. The question is, which one is more probable to you? I simply can't conceive of non-intelligent DNA randomly "conferring," as you say, the ability to use these two chemicals as a defense mechanism. I really must say that an evolutionist trying to explain how this could have occurred is it's own form of entertainment. The creationists definitely have a leg up on this one because it frankly makes much more sense that there was a design in mind. The big bang is similar. Believing that an infinitessimally small bit of infinitely dense mass that not even time could escape from suddenly explodes into the known universe of its own accord is every bit as beleif oriented that something or someone willed it into being. Interestingly, I've had a reverse experience to yours. I was an evolutionist who, through sifting through information over the years, has discovered that evolutionary science does not come even close to a convincing argument for it's status in the scientific world. It is an incorrect statement that microbiology depends one iota on evolutionary theory. Of course much of the observations are seen through that lens, but it is no more directed by evolution than any other field of science. Observation of any kinda is never dependent on current theory; In fact, it is observation that buries them when incorrect. As far as a religious agenda, of course many do have that agenda, and one of my pet peeves are anti-evolutionists that use the Bible or Christian theology as if it were an argument. I think it's a big reason why many like yourself do not search out science on the other side, because frankly, why would you? If it weren't for creation science, however, we'd still be wondering why a human fetus appears to have gills and a tail! That being said, many scientists have as their life goal the pro
Trust me, the government has bigger fish to fry than trying to get on Wikipedia and influence some would-be info searchers. Nobody cites Wikipedia as a viable resource for news and information regarding partisan issues, precisely because everyone knows whoever writes the article is going to be biased one way or the other. Whoever called this a resource war is off their rocker. If all the government was interested in were oil, we wouldn't stage a multi-billion dollar war and strain our relationship with allies in the process, we'd drill in Anwar and be done with it. Besides which we only get about 8% of our oil from the area in question. AND it doesn't help anyone's oil buddies as evidenced by the Gulf War when all the blood for oil chronies were proved wrong in the wake of oil companies losing profits because of the whole situation. That being said, since we're there, of course it would be naive to assume that didn't factor into the plans; anyone in the same situation would do the same.
As I said, an additional nucleotide is not new information. A nucleotide is a nucleotide is a nucleotide. In order for the first protoplasm to become any of the modern species it had to do much more than simply become multiples of itself. Someone born with 6 fingers does not have additional DNA from someone with 5. As far as influenza goes, as I explained before, a particular strain becomes resistent because a mutated version that does not secrete the common enzyme targeted by an anti-body are the only ones to survive. They have not created new information, they've in fact lost information that has, in effect made them more resistent (this is in a nutshell). If I have to qualify myself scientifically then I expect you to do the same. Please explain to me how you think influenza has evolved and tell me the new information created by mutations within a strain. Until you can do this you are not on solid ground to disagree what I'm saying. There is an unbeleivable amount of science refuting evolution out there. More and more secular scientists every year are abandoning eveolution precisely because if it's inability to fill in its own holes. Just dealing with the science of probability begins to unravel evolution fairly quickly. The probability of the first protoplasm coming into existence is un unwriteable number to 1; that's even assuming there was a place on earth at the time with all available amino acids necessary combined with water, the natural rate of adaption tripled, and no oxygen in the atmosphere (which is against what we know geologically), plus many other factors assumed in it's favor. You can find mathematical studies on this via the probablity research institute among others. Evolution also has a very difficult time explaining symbiotic relationships found in many ecosystems, and, as creationists point out, it cannot explain how an organism such as the bombardier beetle could have evolved without destroying itself. Cliche, but poignant. The microbilogical field is also brimming with dissenters given knowlege gained over the last 20 years or so especially surrounding the nature of the relationship of differenet systems within a particular organism. Just the way our blood clots is so different from our supposed ancestors that it appears any slight change would destroy any mutation that went down that road. I wasn't making an ad hominem argument, because I didn't use your apparent dislike for creationism as a reason that I disagreed with you. I simply pointed it out. I do enjoy discussing this issue, and I'm glad you've stuck around, usually people have no idea what they're talking about and start making short derogatory comments hoping that others will come to their rescue! Maybe 10% of creationist or evolutionary scientists I have had contact with are not agenda driven and do not have tunnel vision. Most on either side are woefully unaware of the science on the other side; which, if we are to ever have intelligent discussions about the issue we must consider all anlges. Evolutionists should consider the question of creation and objectively observe whether the peices fit and creationists should consider evolution in the same way. As someone who has really looked at both sides, scientific observation I must say is not very kind to evolution.
Firstly, Crick was not a creationist. He was actually one of the propogators of panspermia. Even if he were a creationist I find it surprising that you would automatically dismiss his opinion. That's not very scientifically honest. An added nucleotide is not added information. It is replication of identical information. I never said additive mutations didn't exist. I said mutations that resulted in NEW DNA information don't exist. This is a big reason why evolution has not been proved. I don't expect you to give me an example of new DNA being created by a mutation because it's not out there as far as anyone knows or has observed. I never said anything about creation, you're putting agruments in my mouth. The fact that you so quickly jumped to the conclusion that I was talking about creation makes me think that maybe you haven't given any creedence to any other science you may be afraid of. I encourage you to maybe familiarize yourself with some of the arguments of non-evolutionists. The question of our origin is far too important to pigeon hole yourself before considering all the scientific data out there. (P.S. - Most science is agenda-oriented on any side of the issue whether we like it or not.)
Replication errors are not evolution. If influenza were not simply rearranging or losing information but creating it, we would have Evolutionary Law as opposed to Evolutionary Theory. There are many things which appear to have evolved or appear to be evolving like influenza, but the fact is that they are not. There is nothing in observable science that can be confirmed to be a gain of DNA information! And if Francis Crick (discoverer of DNA) is correct, it is impossible.
Actually it doesn't. And I was waiting for someone to point that out. The mutation of influenza is, in fact a loss of information that renders it protected from a specific anti-body that targets one of its specific enzymes. Please go research it and get back to me. If a gain of functional DNA had been observed in a mutation it would be world wide news and dominate scientific headlines. I'm not saying it disproves evolution, but I'm saying we haven't seen it.
Adaptation is NOT evolution. Evolution is a mutation associated with a new permutation of a species in which there is additional DNA information. In other words, not a rearranging or loss of current DNA imposed by some environmental factor as we see with adaption. Even Darwin understood this difference. Incidentally, there has never been in observable science an example of a gain of different DNA information within any species, let alone humans.