Originally posted by Rren
I have noticed many discussions, here an ATS regarding creationism -vs- evolutionism. I have made the argument many times that substantiel evidence
for design cannot be ignored, remember for evolution to be soley responsible for all life, including man, you have to assume that spontaneous
generation is scientifically valid.
What reason is there to think that that is wrong? We assume that everything can be investigated scientifically, then we attempt to investigate, and
see what happens. We can't, for example, inverstigate scientifically the nature of god, so we recognize that there is no 'science of god'. We
can't demonstrate, sciencifically, that divine intervention occurs, or that miracles happen, so we recognize that there is no scientific theory of
miracles. Man is investigating the origins of life from non-living chemicals, and nothing seems to be blocking that investigation at all. Its not
complete, certainly, but the things we once thought immposible, aren't.
For many years the medieval idea of spontaneous generation was the accepted explanation.
Yeah, in medieval times. Thats when it was accepted. Modern organic and biochemistry are really recent branches of science. The fact that decaying
meat doesn't produce living organisms isn't relevant.
If it sprang up spontaneously from no previous life, it contradicts a basic law of nature which forms the foundation of the entire
theory.
No it doesn't. All that the 'life thru putrification' experiments have demonstrated is that rotting flesh doesn't give rise to simple organisms,
and similar experiements have only ever shown that the world, today, isn't an environment that tends to produce life spontaneously.
Also, expecting an advanced cell like an amoeba to form from raw chemicals is unrealistic, and its not what biologists expect to happen.
an incredible leap-of-logic to assume this is the natural product of non-living materials to become living and eventually sentient.
Sentience is irrelevant here.
What would be involved in the accidental development of a single living cell?
Since none of the people researching the origins of life expect a single celled organisms to arise spontaneously, this question is irrelevant. Its
actually kind of funny, that anyone would even ask it. Its exactly like expecting mice to form from hay piles, or maggots from meat.
The entire complex of New York City is less complicated than the makeup of the simplest microscopic cell.
Self-organizing chemicals found in nature are more complex than cities. But we don't expect them to have been molded by god.
"From the probability standpoint, the ordering of the present environment into a single amino acid molecule would be utterly improbable in all the
time and space available for the origin of terrestrial life."
The present environment, not the pre-biotic environment.
"The amount of matter to be shaken together to produce a single molecule of protein would be millions of times greater than that in the whole
universe. For it to occur on earth alone would require many, almost endless, billions of years."
Thats preposterous. THere is no mimimum amount that is required for a chain of peptides to be considered a protein. Thats a claim that is on its
face absurd. Besides which, no matter how 'improbable' anyone thinks these things are, comlex things do occur naturally, chemicals can indeed
spontaneously arrange.
Next I would like to explore mutations as the vehicle by which evolution creates new species:
Mutation is not, strictly, said to produce new species. The idea that systemic mutations cause new species is 'mutationism', also sometimes called
'saltationism'. Mutation of genes can and does result in beneficial changes. But not necessarily species, species tend to be formed due to
'population' types of events, ie isolation, restriction of gene flow, etc.
This means that all the fossil records of animal history should reveal an utter absence of precise family boundaries
Which is precisely what we see. We cannot draw a non-arbitrary boundary between reptiles and mammals in the fossil record, or dinosaurs and birds, or
any group. When we can only look at whats living now, we see trememdous 'gaps' between forms, but where the fossil record is relatively detailed, we
see that there are no 'types'.
with literally hundreds of millions of half-developed fish trying to become amphibious, and reptiles halfway transformed into birds, and
mammals looking like half-apes or half-men.
This is completely incorrect. We expect that in the past, that there were large numbers of so-called 'transitionals', but there is absolutely no
reason to think that they've all become fossilized and that all the fossils have been recovered. And yet, we
do have lots of transitionals,
we've been fortunate, we have things that aren't dinosaurs and aren't birds, but are dino-birds. We have fishy things with primitive legs, we have
things that cover the full spectrum from primitive ape to advanced man. We would not expect these things if god created all types at once.
evolutionists(and I, by no means mean to be sarcastic or condescending)
Indeed, sometimes 'evolutionist' is used to mean 'people who have faith in the religion of evolution' or something like that, but it can infact,
when used properly like you have been using it, be quite accurate. Ernst Mayr, for example, used the term 'Evolutionist' quite regularly.
is this not a valid observation, should we not have some evidence in the fossil record for these "half-breeds" caught in the act of
evolving.
Yes, its reasonable to say that there should be transitionals between 'primitive' forms and the modern forms. And this indeed is what we have.
However, it'd be inaccurate to think of these things as 'striving' to become reptiles, birds, or man. They merely
are. They change over
time, and when we hold the modern things today as an 'end point', we can talk about 'transitionals', but in reality,
every species in the
fossil record is a 'transitional', everything in the fossil record is doing just what 'transitionals' do, existing, and being subjected to natural
selection. Sometimes the changes are perceived as 'big', sometimes we don't consider the changes to be important at all. But thats just
perception.
Yet it must not be forgotten that mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation found in natural populations and the only raw
material available for natural selection to work on
This is true. Darwin recognized that populations are variable. He also recognized that later generations can have variation that extends into regions
not previously covered, ie 'new' variation. He didn't know anything about genes or genetics, but he recognized that there was a 'something' that
was producing un-directed and essentially random, new variation. He recognized that thats what allows new features to arise, as opposed to simply
shifting a population to one end of its already existing variation. That 'something' was realized later to be mutations occuring in the genome.
Evolutionists say that mutation is absolutely essential to provide the inexorable upgrading of species which changed the simpler forms into
more complex forms. BUT - the scientific fact is that mutation could NEVER accomplish what evolution demands of it
This is simply untrue. There is no reason to think that mutations can't result in new variation.
Huxley admits: "The great majority of mutant genes are harmful in their effect on the organism
Technically, many theorists now think that the majority of mutations are completley neutral, have no effect. Next in abundance are harmful mutations,
whether somewhat harmful or completely fatal, and then comes in the rare beneficial mutations. But the rarity doesn't matter, beneficial mutations
occur.
Other scientists, including Darwin himself, conceded that most mutants are recessive and degenerative
Darwin and his comtemporaries didn't understand the genome or genetics, and what they thought about mutations in the end isn't really relevant.
"Obviously...such a process has played no part whatever in evolution." The Major Features of Evolution, p. 96.
This is kind of silly, Darwin, Huxley (both of them) and Simpson were
staunch evolutionists. Darwin was the most 'gradualistic' of the
three, and the original huxely strongly felt that extreme gradualism wasn't necessary. Simpson
agreed that evolution occured, he's most
likely just noting here that its not as simple as a salamander having a huge mutation that makes it turn into or give birth to a lizard.
I have noticed alot seem to think because you are a christian you are blind to the science of evolution.
I find this strange, since most christians don't really have a problem with evolution, and most scientists are infact christians.
simply because they dont believe its proven we evolved into the myriad of earth life out of non-living materials by chance
The important thing to keep in mind here is that, while mutations are 'random', ie just because an organism could 'use', say, a mutation that
makes its skin water-tight (like a lizard's) doesn't mean that they are going to get it. There is nothing 'directing' mutations, they literally
occur randomly, the error-correcting mechanisms of the genetic machinery has a slight tendency to muck up, and the result is random mutations, etc
etc. Once these random mutations are in the population, however, then the very non-random process of natural selection operates. Those who have
happened to be fortunate enough to have some slight advantage, well, they have the advantage and thats what its all about. So long as the pressure is
constant, say, for thicker skin, you'll tend to get populations with thicker and thicker skin (for example). That portion is what's usually termed
'progressive', but its base, the new variations, the mutations, are still random.
i figure, with the new forum category, i should probably contribute. 
