EVOLUTION - Settled Science - or - A Magic Man In The Mud?

reply to post by SuperiorEd


Exactly what sort of "thoughts" is this provoking? From what I can see of the rest of your posts here, they're not likely high-end ones.

Let's start off with one "thought" presented by the narrator. That calling evolution a "settled fact" is a risky proposition in science. Thing is... no, it's not. Populations of organisms change over time. That's irrefutable. it's easily demonstrable. That's all evolution is, "populations of organisms change over the generations." Are you different from your parents? Your great-grandparents? Are the people of England circa 2011 different from the people of Britannia circa 43 AD? Yes, of course.

Now the question in science is why this happens. Darwin started it off with the theories of natural and sexual selection, and did a lot of work on artificial selection as well. We've now also got such things as genetic drift in the mix, and a number of other theories on why evolution happens. The fact that there are many causes is what keeps any of them from being one unified law of biology; Gigantic testicles and inflatable vulvas don't help chimpanzees survive their environment any better, but they sure do make them sexy to other chimpanzees; thus these traits were acquired through sexual selection rather than natural selection. basically the chimps with the biggest balls get hte girl chimps with the poofiest fanny.

Our paradigms of "truth" are in fact NOT being challenged; see, scientific truth is based off evidence. That's immutable. While religious "truth" is based on a given cleric or congregant's interpretation of the opinion of a cleric or congregant's interpretation from several thousand years ago with regards to what the tribal idol wanted at that time, scientific truth is determined by that which can be observed and proven. While the collection of true things is always expanding, the system by which truth is determined is pretty much immutable in science.

The video then goes into a contextually hilarious condemnation of Aristotle's hypothesis on spontaneous generation. To its credit, the video does point out that this hypothesis was shown to be false - at least in the examples given by Aristotle - by science. The video also omits that religious views on hte origin of life all hiunbge on spontaneous generation and even in the face of the admitted scientific evidence against it, still maintain this belief after thousands of years. Aristole's excuse was that he didn't have a magnifying glass. Religion's excuse is that "it's tradition." if Aristotle had seen flies laying eggs on putrid meat, he would have definitely known where maggots come from. Give the magnifying class to religion, and it says that it's the devil's work and breaks the magnifying glass.

"What is evolution's stance on the origins of life?" - easy answer, it doesn't have one. Evolution presupposes life; Might as well be asking a marine biologist where water comes from. The field of abiogenesis borrows some notions from evolutionary theory, basically the concept of selection as applied to complex replicating proteins; those protiens that replicated more easily would end up numbering more than the less efficient ones - but evolutionary theory does not worry about where life came from, or where hte breaking point between life and nonlife is. It's the study of change in organism populations; thus evolution only gives a damn about what was going on when the second organism came about.

The difference between abiogenesis and spontaneous generation is actually pretty easy to explain, too. Abiogenesis postulates that the origins of life lay in chemistry. That complex protiens assembled and replicated (as to many other chemicals today; crystals are an aggregate form of this) and eventually became complex enough to be what we consider "life". That is, through the process of chemistry, life developed. Spontaneous generation on the other hand, held that complex life and whole organisms sprouted out of dross and offal; flies from rotted meat, mice from wheat, lawyers from latrine ditches, and so forth.

Mice don't come from wheat, lambs don't fall from trees, and humans aren't formed from dirt. But proto-life cold very well have come from semi-life, which came about from basic chemistry.

"Randomly" isn't quite accurate, either. Chemical X interacts with chemical Y in a predictable fashion under condition 2. That's not "random." Create a replicating molecule, put it in a protien-rich but life-sterile ocean, and you'll almost definitely have something resembling life in a feew thousand years. Sadly, we lack such an ocean to work with. Even the most inhospitable places are teeming with microbial life that woudl eat our self-replicating molecules. Maybe if we find Mars to be totally lifeless, we can try the experiment on some of hte polar ice lakes out there.

I've actually got Richard Dawkins' "The Ancestors' Tale." It actually doesn't devote much time at all to origins. One chapter, out of over forty. And it's the last chapter. I had to read the book twice before I even reached it, 'cause, goddamn it's a big book (informative, too, I would heartily recommend it). The chapter in question - headed "Canturbury" (the book is a play on the Canturbury Tales, another one I'd recommend) - doesn't so much argue for abiogenesis, as present the theories and methods being used in the vield. of course Dawkins finds it likely, but then, that's probably because it IS likely. Life on earth originated from processes on earth, how droll.

The video closes off without having ever actually made an argument for or even against anything.

The only thought it provoked in me is "Boy, these creationist videos sure use a lot of soft guitar"

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Life on earth originated from processes on earth. Of course, on this theoretical primeval earth, you certainly wouldn't be breathing long. That's because it would have been impossible for life to begin in an atmosphere containing oxygen. There is no evidence that our atmosphere has ever differed greatly from the present. If this is so, then a naturalistic origin of life should be eliminated without further discussion.

reply to post by painterdude


I'd suggest hitting the google for the string, "earth's early atmosphere," 'cause I really don't have the several days it would take to burden you with all the facts that show we actually DO know that the atmosphere was significantly different back in "Ye Olde Dayes."

The development of photosynthesis - and thus the mass production of oxygen - very likely DID strike a microbial extinction event. it's possible that the archaea kingdom are relic survivors of that extinction.

Magic man of mud or man made of magic mud (and a spare rib for the ladies).........definitely a tough choice but I think I'll go with the theory based on observable facts. May put a dampener on my plans for the 'Creationist Ladies BBQ Rib Sauce Wrestling Match' I was planning.

Aristotle came up with the best theory he could at the time based on reasoning and observations. What he did not do was sit back and just accept the popular mythology
of that time

Originally posted by painterdude
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

Life on earth originated from processes on earth. Of course, on this theoretical primeval earth, you certainly wouldn't be breathing long. That's because it would have been impossible for life to begin in an atmosphere containing oxygen. There is no evidence that our atmosphere has ever differed greatly from the present. If this is so, then a naturalistic origin of life should be eliminated without further discussion.

Also painterdude there is mountains of evidence regarding how Earths early atmoshphere was different from our the present day atmosphere.

Earth's Early Atmosphere

I currently work at an iron ore mine whose deposit would not have formed unless the atmosphere of the past was even remotely like the one we live in today.

Trust me - I'm a geologist