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

reply to post by peter vlar


Peter, hey again I see you have an interest in this topic as here we are in another evolution thread, It is obvious you and I have differing views however I wanted to thank you for your links in the post above I have not quite made it completely through the first one it is rather long and dry reading but thanks for the information and again as always much respect. Star!

reply to post by Woodcarver


Then you must know that the basis of evolutionary Darwinian theory is that Mutations are random. That's the very essence of the theory.

reply to post by Brotherman

That is not what symbiotic means. Your posts are like word salad. You have heard these words before but you are not using them correctly. Have you been to school?

Your wild guesses are way off. Probably because they are wild guesses you should probably educate yourself so you dont have to make wild guesses. Even a quick wiki search would help you immensely.

Its well known that a bacteria similar cyanobacteria is likely the first type of life that developed here. And evolution has nothing to say about the beginnings of life because it is not the study of the beginnings of life. that is something completly different.

reply to post by Willtell


Darwinian theory might as well be stone age thinking compared to what we know about biology today.

reply to post by Woodcarver

Symbiosis, in a broad definition, is "the living together in an intimate association of two or more dis­
similar organisms." Symbiosis can result in a relationship in which both organisms benefit.

In the beginning for life to have been either created or came into being by randomness and evolve it had to have been such that the environment was symbiotic, that is a fact not word salad.

"And evolution has nothing to say about the beginnings of life because it is not the study of the beginnings of life."

Then why was Darwins book entitled the "origin of species" I believe the beginning of any species or a life form is quite applicable to evolution and creationism would you not agree? If you disagree what is the purpose of evolutionary theory? Explain how organisms evolved I'd guess but I still beg the question evolved from what exactly?

reply to post by Brotherman

No. Symbiosis requires life to exist. An environment can be favorable to life or not. It cannot by symbiotic.

But what do you consider "life" to be? Can you define it? Is RNA "life?"

Brotherman
reply to post by Woodcarver

 

Symbiosis, in a broad definition, is "the living together in an intimate association of two or more dis­
similar organisms." Symbiosis can result in a relationship in which both organisms benefit.

In the beginning for life to have been either created or came into being by randomness and evolve it had to have been such that the environment was symbiotic, that is a fact not word salad.

Its not randomness and the enviroment is not an organism. Read your own definition.

Phage
reply to post by Brotherman

 

No. Symbiosis requires life to exist. An environment can be favorable to life or not. It cannot by symbiotic.

But what do you consider "life" to be? Can you define it? Is RNA "life?"

edit on 12/28/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

I agree symbiosis does require life to exist, what I am trying to say here is that life on earth cannot exist without it the environment had to support life I leave the beginning environment undefined because IDK what it was like then however I will say that they way life is observed now, we require things in our environment to allow us to survive. There had to be a symbiotic relationship between the environment and an organism for survival, can life live without an environment that allows life to live? (i really am asking)

reply to post by Phage


Hi phage. Glad your here but are you really going to ask me to define life?

The condition that distinguishes organic matter from inorganic. Namely citing the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

Oops sry phage i thought that was directed toward me.

Woodcarver

Brotherman
reply to post by Woodcarver

 

Symbiosis, in a broad definition, is "the living together in an intimate association of two or more dis­
similar organisms." Symbiosis can result in a relationship in which both organisms benefit.

In the beginning for life to have been either created or came into being by randomness and evolve it had to have been such that the environment was symbiotic, that is a fact not word salad.

Its not randomness and the enviroment is not an organism. Read your own definition.

Environment is made up of lots of organisms, nit picking doesn't do anything, I used environment as a broader word for all the organisms it encompasses sorry about that.

reply to post by Woodcarver

No worries. I do the same on occassion.

Glad your here but are you really going to ask me to define life?

Yes. Because it's somewhat pertinent and definitions vary.

The condition that distinguishes organic matter from inorganic.

Well, that's incorrect. Methane is organic matter. It isn't alive.

Namely citing the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

Fair enough, it's the first hit I got on Google too. I'm not sure that's quite adequate though. There is the possibility that there could be "life" on other worlds which doesn't fulfill those requirements. But if you mean "life as we know it" it will suffice.


Here's another view:

It is a challenge for scientists and philosophers to define life in unequivocal terms. This is difficult partly because life is a process, not a pure substance. Any definition must be sufficiently broad to encompass all life with which we are familiar, and must be sufficiently general to include life that may be fundamentally different from life on Earth

en.wikipedia.org...

The point I was trying to get at was, at what point does "non life" become life? Would very early life on Earth even be recognizable as life rather than chemical processes? DNA doesn't actually require "life" to do what it does. It's a chemical process.

reply to post by Brotherman


Yes we do not know the conditions of the enviroment when life first developed. What we have noticed though is that life can exist and even thrive in enviroments which we previously thought would be too extreme to support life. These organisms have been labled "extremophiles"

Most life here uses phosphorous as a catalyst for energy. However in at least one case, i think in a very arsenic rich lake in utah, there is a bacteria which uses arsenic as this catalyst. It is very similar in molecular structue to phosphorous, but of course it is very toxic to us.

Life does require a suitable enviroment to thrive. However dna is the mechanism for adaptation.

Dna is like the code for building your body. It is self replicating. But as we know that anytime information is copied, it is never copied perfectly. That is where a species variation comes from. Over a long enough period of time and the separation of populations these variations become so different from the original organism as to make reproduction between the two impossible. At which point they have become different species. They may look similar like horses and donkeys but their offspring ( mules ) are sterile.

reply to post by Phage

The point I was trying to get at was, at what point does "non life" become life? Would very early life on Earth even be recognizable as life rather than chemical processes?

That's the part that confuses me the most. For a creator to create life it more then likely has to create a place for it to thrive. For Life to have evolved it had to have a place that allows its survival to evolve, yet one way or the other the beginnings of life at least on earth to me is terribly confusing because I don't understand that and that makes it even harder to swallow the rest of it. Don't get me wrong I do not refute certain aspects of genetics as part of a process but I really don't buy that one species becomes another, I understand it may be easier if observable change over the massive amount of time theorized it requires to occur would be observable but it is not, personally for me to really make a certainty on this, I cannot and do not understand why others do.

reply to post by Phage


Rna and dna are not considered life as we define it. If we were to expand the definition of life to include them then we would be including nearly all chemical reactions as life.

reply to post by Brotherman

For a creator to create life it more then likely has to create a place for it to thrive.

You are assigning purpose to something which does not necessarily require purpose. If a place is not conducive to life, life will not develop. Conversely, it could very well be that if a place is conducive to life, life will develop. With what is being discovered about the existence of amino acids in space that possibility becomes more and more likely to be fact. It's a really interesting concept, implying among other things, that life everywhere would be based on DNA.

I understand it may be easier if observable change over the massive amount of time theorized it requires to occur would be observable but it is not, personally for me to really make a certainty on this, I cannot and do not understand why others do.

It probably has something to do with all the available data indicating that it is the case. Now, if something comes along which actually shows that it doesn't work, that it can't be right, that would be something. But "it doesn't seem right" doesn't cut it and, for me and a lot of people who have put more time into studying the hard science of it, it does seem right.

reply to post by Brotherman


This is easy. Avian dinosaurs have evolved into modern birds. Their scales have changed into feathers. We do not see horse fossils from millions of years ago but we can trace their ancestors by the fossil record. This proves that they have changed via evolution.

reply to post by Brotherman


It not only seems right it is the only explanation that matches what we have observed.

reply to post by Phage


For me it does not seem right, I do try to read up on many things because of this and try to do so without a belief bias, I'm not a religious person so I do not have that getting in my way. You are right by saying that the way to understand it is the hard science, the problem is I have to stop and read more like when I get to a term pathogenicity or nitrogen assimilation or Coelacanth and why they couldnt exist with modern man but ended up existing with man I have to go learn about those things and then get back to the others. It is not an easy task many times because I do not have people to explain terms I don't understand so have to spend time learning about them on my own which also creates problems like I may not understand them correctly or also I do understand the term correctly but do not understand how it fits with the broader spectrum of information I am trying to absorb. I really do not profess to know anything but do have a thought or two about how some things work.

reply to post by Woodcarver


Yeah. I just sort of threw that out there as a thought.
But that chemical process is essential for life (as we know it). Just one of many. The complexity of those processes increases with the complexity of the organism but they all follow each other following the rules of chemistry. How many such chemical reactions does it take to produce "life"?

I'm actually not sure this really has anything to do with the topic. Certainly nothing to do with evolution. Sorry.

OP is probably asking a lot to make interested contributors see 3 hours of videos without some sort of summary.

That being said, evolution is impossible and science proves it. The human genome has 6 billion base pairs per diploid cell. www.edinformatics.com... Also, DNA codes bidirectionally, meaning you can't just take a piece out or it all falls apart in two or more ways.

Science teaches that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.

Clearly, a successful mutation every year would not be enough to create a human being. Successful mutations, also, are rare.

As a scientist, you either believe and support evolution, or you lose your job. Simple as that. It qualifies to be a religion. It tells us (1) where we came from, (2) why we are here, and (3) where we are going. The faith is based on data that is heavily purged to support itself, ruling out all data that could conflict with evolution.

If you don't believe, you (your career) die. Sounds like Islam to me. Except, Islam does not believe in evolution.

If you are a Christian, you cannot believe in evolution. A god who decides the fate of man by survival of the fittest, adaptation, and natural selection would be a cruel god indeed. Evolution is the religion of the atheists.