oddbird1963 Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 How will evolution explain by random-nonintelligent processes how life began without some kind of intelligence behind it? That would be like a car being built without intelligence and power to put it together. It would be absurd to think so. OK. Disclaimer. I didn't read all the posts. I'm sure someone covered this. So please excuse any redundancy. Amazed, The theory of evolution is not intended to explain the origin of life, only speciation. You are talking abiogenesis and evolutionary theory does not deal with that. Sincerely, OB '63 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest amazed Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 How will evolution explain by random-nonintelligent processes how life began without some kind of intelligence behind it? That would be like a car being built without intelligence and power to put it together. It would be absurd to think so. OK. Disclaimer. I didn't read all the posts. I'm sure someone covered this. So please excuse any redundancy. Amazed, The theory of evolution is not intended to explain the origin of life, only speciation. You are talking abiogenesis and evolutionary theory does not deal with that. Sincerely, OB '63 Evolution must deal with it though. The origin of life is foundational to evolution and this is one of the greatest obstacles to the theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 How will evolution explain by random-nonintelligent processes how life began without some kind of intelligence behind it? That would be like a car being built without intelligence and power to put it together. It would be absurd to think so. OK. Disclaimer. I didn't read all the posts. I'm sure someone covered this. So please excuse any redundancy. Amazed, The theory of evolution is not intended to explain the origin of life, only speciation. You are talking abiogenesis and evolutionary theory does not deal with that. Sincerely, OB '63 Evolution must deal with it though. The origin of life is foundational to evolution and this is one of the greatest obstacles to the theory. If one were to talk about breathing, one would not need to speak of the sex his or her parents had. Clearly, that sex was necessary for the person's breathing, but you don't have to bring it up every time you talk about breathing. Ask any pulmonologist. Evolution is to breathing what abiogenesis is to sex. Yes there must have been abiogenesis (whether godly or not), but evolution is a process that occurs in the present regardless of who your parents are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest amazed Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 How will evolution explain by random-nonintelligent processes how life began without some kind of intelligence behind it? That would be like a car being built without intelligence and power to put it together. It would be absurd to think so. OK. Disclaimer. I didn't read all the posts. I'm sure someone covered this. So please excuse any redundancy. Amazed, The theory of evolution is not intended to explain the origin of life, only speciation. You are talking abiogenesis and evolutionary theory does not deal with that. Sincerely, OB '63 Evolution must deal with it though. The origin of life is foundational to evolution and this is one of the greatest obstacles to the theory. If one were to talk about breathing, one would not need to speak of the sex his or her parents had. Clearly, that sex was necessary for the person's breathing, but you don't have to bring it up every time you talk about breathing. Ask any pulmonologist. Evolution is to breathing what abiogenesis is to sex. Yes there must have been abiogenesis (whether godly or not), but evolution is a process that occurs in the present regardless of who your parents are. I've been looking forward to seeing your responses to these things since you are a doctor and well educated. I understand that evolution is a process but I think that trying to explain how life began is to great of problem to explain by the evoltion. Secondly, i also don't think evoltion can explain where the information came for DNA comes from by naturalistic process. How would you answer these issues for a layman to understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lunaticheathen Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 I see amazed is interested in making anyone but him "back up" their statements. Anyone who slept through western civ would know that being christian was a matter of life and death at the time his "devout christian scientists" lived in europe. I'm not doing his homework for him, especially since he's more interested in trying to make ID into science, when it's just bad philosophy in a cheap prom tux. He can stay ignorant, however disgusted it makes me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 Evolution must deal with it though. The origin of life is foundational to evolution and this is one of the greatest obstacles to the theory. Not really. Evolution deals with the evolution of existing life, not how amino acids, proteins, cell membranes, etc fits together, even though it does touch the subject. Chemistry is not physics, even though it does need some of it. Physics is not mathematics, even though it does use it to large degree. And so on. Would you like to have just one kind of science and theory class in school? Mathbiophysochemistry the one-size-fits-all class. In other words, no, evolution does not have to deal with black holes to explain how genetic drift potentially could affect phenotype. Neither do they have to know Quantum Physics to explain retro-viruses or dormant genes. And it might surprise you, but they don't have to use quadratic formula or trigonometric identity proofs to establish how copy-errors can cause mutations. Perhaps a quote from Wikipedia will explain it better to you: In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or "chemical evolution", is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of living things change over time. Amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment, which involved simulating the conditions of the early Earth. In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids. Thus the question of how life on Earth originated is a question of how the first nucleic acids arose. I know it can be difficult to understand there are differences between things, and that it's not accurate to group everyone or everything in some religious simplified talking-points, but you'll learn eventually to see in gray-scale when your black-n-white blinders are removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest amazed Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 I see amazed is interested in making anyone but him "back up" their statements. Anyone who slept through western civ would know that being christian was a matter of life and death at the time his "devout christian scientists" lived in europe. I'm not doing his homework for him, especially since he's more interested in trying to make ID into science, when it's just bad philosophy in a cheap prom tux. He can stay ignorant, however disgusted it makes me. I hope you feel better. Now give me an arguemnt that evolution can start life from non-life. Can you do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 I hope you feel better. Now give me an arguemnt that evolution can start life from non-life. Can you do that? It's a question for Chemical Evolution and not for Evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest amazed Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 Evolution must deal with it though. The origin of life is foundational to evolution and this is one of the greatest obstacles to the theory. Not really. Evolution deals with the evolution of existing life, not how amino acids, proteins, cell membranes, etc fits together, even though it does touch the subject. Chemistry is not physics, even though it does need some of it. Physics is not mathematics, even though it does use it to large degree. And so on. Would you like to have just one kind of science and theory class in school? Mathbiophysochemistry the one-size-fits-all class. In other words, no, evolution does not have to deal with black holes to explain how genetic drift potentially could affect phenotype. Neither do they have to know Quantum Physics to explain retro-viruses or dormant genes. And it might surprise you, but they don't have to use quadratic formula or trigonometric identity proofs to establish how copy-errors can cause mutations. Perhaps a quote from Wikipedia will explain it better to you: In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or "chemical evolution", is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of living things change over time. Amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment, which involved simulating the conditions of the early Earth. In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids. Thus the question of how life on Earth originated is a question of how the first nucleic acids arose. I know it can be difficult to understand there are differences between things, and that it's not accurate to group everyone or everything in some religious simplified talking-points, but you'll learn eventually to see in gray-scale when your black-n-white blinders are removed. Thanks for the info. The origin of life begs for an explanation. How do you think it started? How do we get from inorganic material to a high tech factory (cell) by random-unintelligent forces? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest amazed Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 I hope you feel better. Now give me an arguemnt that evolution can start life from non-life. Can you do that? It's a question for Chemical Evolution and not for Evolution. Same issue. How do you get from the randomized chemicals to a cell without intelligence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 Thanks for the info. The origin of life begs for an explanation. How do you think it started? How do we get from inorganic material to a high tech factory (cell) by random-unintelligent forces? In a sense the Universe is alive already. The difference between "dead" and "living" matter is more a matter of degree than an on/off situation. Dead matter isn't really dead, and living matter is partially dead. So I don't see a need to find a point where we put our finger and say: "look, here is it, this is where dead becomes alive." For instance, a virus, is it alive or is it just dead matter? It's only an RNA string of proteins. It doesn't have any cell membrane or ability to reproduce. It's more like a parasite which makes our living cells reproduce copies of themselves. So what are they? Dead or alive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 I hope you feel better. Now give me an arguemnt that evolution can start life from non-life. Can you do that? It's a question for Chemical Evolution and not for Evolution. Same issue. How do you get from the randomized chemicals to a cell without intelligence? My comment was directed to your misuse of the word Evolution. Since this discussion is about Evolution, it's about Evolution, not Chemical Evolution. There is a lot of evidence for Evolution. But for Chemical Evolution, I agree, it's more of a speculative area and very little science has gone into it so far. The reason is that it's fairly new. You Christians had 2,000 years to prove your point. And you're expecting a science short of 100 years to give more proof than you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest amazed Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 I hope you feel better. Now give me an arguemnt that evolution can start life from non-life. Can you do that? It's a question for Chemical Evolution and not for Evolution. Same issue. How do you get from the randomized chemicals to a cell without intelligence? My comment was directed to your misuse of the word Evolution. Since this discussion is about Evolution, it's about Evolution, not Chemical Evolution. There is a lot of evidence for Evolution. But for Chemical Evolution, I agree, it's more of a speculative area and very little science has gone into it so far. The reason is that it's fairly new. You Christians had 2,000 years to prove your point. And you're expecting a science short of 100 years to give more proof than you do. Its worth a discussion. Its my understanding that evolution goes back to the Greeks. Since modern science wants to explain all things from a naturalistic perspective and not allow the supernatural a foot in the door i want to see how the naturalist and materialist can get their theory off the ground without any intelligence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest amazed Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 Thanks for the info. The origin of life begs for an explanation. How do you think it started? How do we get from inorganic material to a high tech factory (cell) by random-unintelligent forces? In a sense the Universe is alive already. The difference between "dead" and "living" matter is more a matter of degree than an on/off situation. Dead matter isn't really dead, and living matter is partially dead. So I don't see a need to find a point where we put our finger and say: "look, here is it, this is where dead becomes alive." How do you know the Universe is alive as you claim? Lets take a rock. Is it dead or alive? How do you determine which? For instance, a virus, is it alive or is it just dead matter? It's only an RNA string of proteins. It doesn't have any cell membrane or ability to reproduce. It's more like a parasite which makes our living cells reproduce copies of themselves. So what are they? Dead or alive? I'm not that familar with virus'. However, are they not "complex" things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 Its worth a discussion. Its my understanding that evolution goes back to the Greeks. I don't see how. I think it's more like that it's going back to the 1700-century Enlightenment. (They were Christians who came up with Evolution first. Darwin only refined it. Evolution was already proposed. Darwin offered the process and tied up the loose ends.) Since modern science wants to explain all things from a naturalistic perspective and not allow the supernatural a foot in the door i want to see how the naturalist and materialist can get their theory off the ground without any intelligence. Eh? So you're saying that magical mathematics and supernatural physics make more sense to study during prayer meetings and Bible reading than under a microscope and a whiteboard with markers? I'm not that familar with virus'. However, are they not "complex" things? Complex? Is complex dead matter the same as life matter? What is your definition of "alive"? And do understand that Evolution involves virus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest amazed Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 Its worth a discussion. Its my understanding that evolution goes back to the Greeks. I don't see how. I think it's more like that it's going back to the 1700-century Enlightenment. (They were Christians who came up with Evolution first. Darwin only refined it. Evolution was already proposed. Darwin offered the process and tied up the loose ends.) Since modern science wants to explain all things from a naturalistic perspective and not allow the supernatural a foot in the door i want to see how the naturalist and materialist can get their theory off the ground without any intelligence. Eh? So you're saying that magical mathematics and supernatural physics make more sense to study during prayer meetings and Bible reading than under a microscope and a whiteboard with markers? Huh??? What are you getting at? name='amazed' date='23 November 2009 - 05:49 PM' timestamp='1259027386' post='507664']I'm not that familar with virus'. However, are they not "complex" things? Complex? Is complex dead matter the same as life matter? No. Life is essentially composed of motors. The cell is like a high tech factory that is run by motors. What is your definition of "alive"? Good question. I would have to look that up. And do understand that Evolution involves virus. What do you mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 You messed up the quote quite badly, but I think I figured out what parts where yours. So you're saying that magical mathematics and supernatural physics make more sense to study during prayer meetings and Bible reading than under a microscope and a whiteboard with markers? Huh??? What are you getting at? You insinuated that science only makes sense if people are religious and believe in God/Jesus and such. No. Life is essentially composed of motors. The cell is like a high tech factory that is run by motors. Life is a motor? So a car engine is alive? And do understand that Evolution involves virus. What do you mean? Many mutations happens through viral infection. The virus changes the DNA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest amazed Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 You messed up the quote quite badly, but I think I figured out what parts where yours. Sorry about that. So you're saying that magical mathematics and supernatural physics make more sense to study during prayer meetings and Bible reading than under a microscope and a whiteboard with markers? Huh??? What are you getting at? You insinuated that science only makes sense if people are religious and believe in God/Jesus and such. I don't believe that either. No. Life is essentially composed of motors. The cell is like a high tech factory that is run by motors. Life is a motor? So a car engine is alive? No. There are molecular motors in the cell that are truly motors that are highly efficent. And do understand that Evolution involves virus. What do you mean? Many mutations happens through viral infection. The virus changes the DNA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts