Intelligent Design; Does Modern Genetic Research Mean Darwin's THEORY of Evolution Belongs In The..

page: 17
12
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Willtell
 





The is no proof ALL mutations are random.
That's my point. If you research this you will come up with that.


Of course not. You cannot prove a negative. In fact, there are human caused, specifically non-random (that is, done on purpose), mutations happening in laboratories all over the world, every day. There are of course also human caused, random (that is by accident) mutations happening all the time too.

Random, in the 'random mutation' sense means 'with out purpose'. To suppose that there is a purpose behind a mutation necessitates an external actor to hold that purpose. If there is such an external actor, that actor could choose to disguise its actions as 'random mutations' and we could not tell the difference. Science does not rule out that possibility, Science merely describes nature as it is actually observed. New observations require new explanations.

Random mutation does not require an external actor, but as I said above that does not necessarily mean that the external actor is not disguising the purposeful mutations with a swarm of pointless ones. To me, that is a description of a rather cynical God.



That fact doesn't mean evolution is all wrong but the fact that it isn't proven still means evolution is still an abstract theory.


Not abstract, growing, learning, 'evolving'. There is always more to learn. Evolution is not abstract, it is very, very concrete; and has produced benefits beyond reckoning. This planet would not be able to feed its current population unless our understanding of evolution was sufficient to produce the revolutions in food production.

Quantum theory is much, much, much, much weirder, abstract, confusing, and non-intuitive. But it is concrete enough that you wouldn't be typing arguments on the internet unless we understood it quite well indeed. Evolution is much better understood and 'proved' that Quantum theory will ever be.




posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Woodcarver
 




I'll go one further and say that no mutations are random. They all have a cause. Sometimes its a reaction to enviromental stimuli, sometimes its from improper cell replication, sometimes its impropoer chromosome match up. But it always has a reason. Nothing about evolution has been random. And it is not an abstract theory it is a well documented,tested and has NEVER been falsified. If you have never studied biology then you shouldnt be making these weird comments.


The assertions I put into bold are, in fact, not true.

Mutations are indeed random, as in there is no external ACTOR causing them - just chemical reactions - molecules bumping into each other at the wrong time, the wrong angle, interfered with by other molecules or chemicals, or struck by some energy particle in the wrong way or the wrong time.

Natural Selection is NOT random. It is a filter that eliminates the bad mutations, favors the good mutations, and ignores the vast majority of mutations that don't affect anything.

Evolution is Natural Selection making use of the pool of random mutations to ensure some population continues the chain of life. That is the only sense of purpose in evolution - continuation of life. There is no direction in that purpose, however, one creature is not 'more evolved' than another, the two are both 'completely' evolved exactly as they are, just differently.



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Brotherman
 


Perhaps this can help you understand the difference between Abiogenisis and Evolution. First life was not life as we know it today - not cellular - not complex. This video is short enough to appreciate fairly quickly.



It is not guaranteed that Dr. Szostak's description here is exactly what happened. It is pretty darn straight forward though and that is an extremely useful measure to judge its relative validity.

Here is an hour long lecture, where he relates his work on Abiogenisis to the question of extraterrestrial life.



Far from ignoring anything, this is this guy's life work. He is taking every piece of the puzzle into account that he possibly can.



posted on Jan, 13 2014 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 



Sorry, but when it comes to abiogenesis, it's just a hypothesis, a very incomplete one that!

It's like watching a movie where half of it is missing and you're left with filling in the gaps as best as you can based on assumptions and wild imaginations and what everscientific facts you can fit in to complete the "picture".



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 




Sorry, but when it comes to abiogenesis, it's just a hypothesis, a very incomplete one that!


Why are you apologizing? You are right that there is as yet no "Theory of Abiogenesis". Hypotheses are not 'incomplete', they are 'intermediate'. Perhaps there never will be a 'complete' theory, but there is a great deal of work going on, and a lot of progress is being made.

However you need to understand that "Abiogenesis" itself is neither an "hypothesis" nor a "theory", it is a topic of study in Biology. There are many hypotheses about how various aspects of abiogenesis might work. Over time some of those hypotheses will be eliminated, others will be proposed, one day they may be pulled together into a full blown Theory. There is a lot of work before that happens, if ever. You shouldn't apologize for understanding that; that's how science works, and abiogenesis is hard.

When thought about with an open mind, Creation is 'just' an hypothesis about abiogenesis. It lacks a great deal of vigor, however, and truth be told, has been eliminated from serious abiogenesis discussion for many, many decades (I want to say centuries, but there are examples of serious scientists who could not give it up right into the 20th Century). The Creation Hypothesis cannot make predictions, cannot be tested, cannot be falsified, provides no avenues for further research, and cannot be weighed against competing hypotheses. It just has too many hurdles to get over.

A biologist can ask questions of an hypothesis like: "Hypothesis: Maybe peptide chains were the primitive cell membrane. Question: If so how might they have formed?: You cannot ask questions of the "Creation Hypothesis". No matter what the question, the only answer is "God did it. End of story". That answer is useless in this context.

The "God did it" answer is useful in a "philosophy/psychology/inner consciousness exploration" context, but not in biology.
edit on 14/1/2014 by rnaa because: general cleanup, syntax, grammar, flow



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 07:45 AM
link   

edmc^2

AfterInfinity
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I noticed that nothing in what you posted said anything about a solitary rib regenerating an entire human being.


Well, if humans can RECREATE a new animal (say Dolly the sheep) from a donor cell, why is this hard or impossible for the Creator who who fully knows the human makeup and anatomy?

Of course not.



can you give us a testable hypothesis for that?



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 09:02 AM
link   

AfterInfinity

edmc^2

AfterInfinity
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I noticed that nothing in what you posted said anything about a solitary rib regenerating an entire human being.


Well, if humans can RECREATE a new animal (say Dolly the sheep) from a donor cell, why is this hard or impossible for the Creator who who fully knows the human makeup and anatomy?

Of course not.



can you give us a testable hypothesis for that?


Or yet better, why supposed creator needed part of Adam to create first women? Shouldn't he already know how to create her?

This stuff is so confusing...



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 12:07 PM
link   

edmc^2
reply to post by rnaa
 



Sorry, but when it comes to abiogenesis, it's just a hypothesis, a very incomplete one that!

It's like watching a movie where half of it is missing and you're left with filling in the gaps as best as you can based on assumptions and wild imaginations and what everscientific facts you can fit in to complete the "picture".



Feels an awful lot like you're mocking science using a device that science gave you. There's some irony for ya!



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 12:39 PM
link   
LOL

He got close to understanding, but cut wrong part of the movie. He just missed start of the movie, and does not know the title, but is able to see all movie to the end and now is trying to figure out what title should be...

Give him some more time, he will figure it out.





new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in

join