Irreducible complexity and Evolution

a reply to: whereislogic



Beware of the talisman called "Peer Reviewed"

a reply to: whereislogic



Why most published research is probably false.

a reply to: dusty1

You have created a fallacy,abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different things. The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about the origin of life. It merely describes the processes which take place once life has started. The fallacy of rejecting evolution due to it not explaining the origin of life is the same as saying heliocentrism doesn't explain the origin of life. Guess what they dont. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis and though some evidence points to it being correct has not been proven. So any scientist that tries to argue this is wrong. Untill further experiments provide more evidence no point in even trying to argue it. Thats called science and in science you need proof.

a reply to: whereislogic


Why Most Published Research Findings Are False


robotics.cs.tamu.edu...

a reply to: dragonridr

You have created a fallacy,abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different things.

The argument should be Creation vs Abiogenesis.


Everyone knows what is being discussed.

People that believe in Creation believe in a Creator.

Most people who believe in the theory of evolution do not.


I always laugh when people want to act like evolution is somehow suspended in mid air, and unconnected to abiogenesis or the big bang.


It is intellectually dishonest.

a reply to: dusty1

People that believe in Creation believe in a Creator.

Most people who believe in the theory of evolution do not.

that is purely nonsense...

Christians... Don't believe in evolution because it conflicts with their scripture...

Just because someone acknowledges that evolution is the most likely way we happened does not mean they do not believe in a God or a creator

Hell even a good portion of Christians believe evolution is the way it happened... Fundamentalist religionists will never disagree with their holy texts regardless of what is presented to them

originally posted by: dusty1
a reply to: whereislogic


These guys are hilarious.


Sir Francis Crick the co discoverer of DNA came to realize that it is IMPOSSIBLE for DNA to have formed on its own.


He came to believe that Panspermia was the explanation for life on earth.

Care to provide a citation from this nonsense?

They can say what they want, but abiogenesis is impossible.

It's not impossible and abiogenesis isn't germane to MES. At its most basic, evolution is just a measurement of change in allele frequency over time. How life started has absolutely no bearing on it whatsoever, its just a study of how things changed once life was here.

Evolution is a religious belief that goes back to ancient India. Darwin was simply parroting a belief system that was thousands of years old.

Surrrrreeeeee... whatever you say.

Let's see what Crick thought about religion, especially Creationism...

Crick was a firm critic of Young Earth creationism. In the 1987 United States Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard, Crick joined a group of other Nobel laureates who advised, "'Creation-science' simply has no place in the public-school science classroom."

Crick referred to himself as a humanist, which he defined as the belief "that human problems can and must be faced in terms of human moral and intellectual resources without invoking supernatural authority." He publicly called for humanism to replace religion as a guiding force for humanity, writing-

"The human dilemma is hardly new. We find ourselves through no wish of our own on this slowly revolving planet in an obscure corner of a vast universe. Our questioning intelligence will not let us live in cow-like content with our lot. We have a deep need to know why we are here. What is the world made of? More important, what are we made of? In the past religion answered these questions, often in considerable detail. Now we know that almost all these answers are highly likely to be nonsense, having sprung from man's ignorance and his enormous capacity for self-deception... The simple fables of the religions of the world have come to seem like tales told to children. Even understood symbolically they are often perverse, if not rather unpleasant... Humanists, then, live in a mysterious, exciting and intellectually expanding world, which, once glimpsed, makes the old worlds of the religions seem fake-cosy and stale...

Crick was especially critical of Christianity:
"I do not respect Christian beliefs. I think they are ridiculous. If we could get rid of them we could more easily get down to the serious problem of trying to find out what the world is all about.":[91]
Crick once joked, "Christianity may be OK between consenting adults in private but should not be taught to young children."

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: dusty1
a reply to: dragonridr

You have created a fallacy,abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different things.

The argument should be Creation vs Abiogenesis.


Everyone knows what is being discussed.

People that believe in Creation believe in a Creator.

Most people who believe in the theory of evolution do not.


I always laugh when people want to act like evolution is somehow suspended in mid air, and unconnected to abiogenesis or the big bang.


It is intellectually dishonest.

Intellectually dishonest? you mean like making claims about Crick that you don't support with any evidence? That's to be expected though from the scientifically illiterate.

a reply to: peter vlar

Care to provide a citation from this nonsense?

Intellectually dishonest? you mean like making claims about Crick that you don't support with any evidence? That's to be expected though from the scientifically illiterate.

Ok

Here ya go.

Directed Panspermia I?. H. C. CRICK Medical Research Council, Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Hills Road, Cambridge, England

Sir Francis apparently believed Darwin thought that evolution began when conditions on earth were more favorable.

He believed in something called Directed Panspermia.

It was not until the middle of the nineteenth century that Pasteur and Tyndall completed the demonstration that spontaneous generation is not occurring on the earth nowadays. Darwin and a number of other biologists concluded that life must have evolved here long ago when conditions were more favourable. A number of scientists, however, drew a quite different conclusion. They supposed that if life does not evolve from terrestrial nonliving matter nowadays, it may never have done so. Hence, they argued, life reached the earth as an “infection” from another planet (Oparin, 1957). Arrhenius

profiles.nlm.nih.gov...


His holiness Richard Dawkins appears familiar with the concept.




A brief overview of Directed Panspermia

The late Nobel prize winner Professor Francis Crick, OM FRS, along with British chemist Leslie Orgel proposed the theory of directed panspermia in 1973. A co-discoverer of the double helical structure of the DNA molecule, Crick found it impossible that the complexity of DNA could have evolved naturally.

panspermia-theory.com...

Francis Crick wrote a book on the subject.

Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature

Here's an overview

People have often explored the possibility of life outside the realms of earth. The key issue that is in focus in the book Life Itself lightly touches and deals with this possibility. However, what the author, Francis Crick, is genuinely concerned with is the origin of life on earth. Throughout this book, he presents another possible explanation for the existence of life. Crick’s theory is a polished version of Panspermia called Directed Panspermia. Panspermia was a theory suggested by the Swedish physicist Arrhenius who proposed that life was “seeded by microorganisms wafted in from space” (Crick 15). However, other scientists did not find the idea at all convincing and criticized him by stating that the spores could not have managed the journey without being tarnished by radiation. Directed Panspermia circumvents this criticism with the help of an additional clause that seeds could have traveled in the “head of an unmanned spaceship sent to earth by a higher civilization which had developed elsewhere some billions of years ago” (Crick 15-16).

legacy.lakeforest.edu... ages/eukaryon/Page_7571/p.%2017-18%20Ali%20Book%20Review.pdf



And finally Richard Dawkins seems to believe in this theory himself.

Jump to 3:22 watch until 4:22

edit on 24-11-2017 by dusty1 because: spellin

a reply to: dusty1

Well it looks like you're the poster child for not having read the Crick papers or the book. Peer review? What do you know about it? The scientist that you quoted has a legitimate case on the topic. But he never said that all peer reviews were worthless. He cites references. Did you read those references? He cites examples. Did you review those examples?
No to everything.

You're another Creationist bull sh&*()it artist recreating the scientific literature into your own crap.



Here's the history of Crick's opinion on panspermia:

LINK

Crick and Orgel proposed their Directed Panspermia theory at a conference on Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence, organized by Carl Sagan and held at the Byuraka Observatory in Soviet Armenia in 1971. This theory which they described as an “highly unorthodox proposal” and “bold speculation” was presented as a plausible scientific hypothesis. Two years after the conference they published an article in Icarus on 1973.

Crick and Orgel were careful to point out that Directed Panspermia was not a certainty; but rather a plausible alternative that ought to be taken seriously. In the paper Crick and Orgel recognised that they “do not have any strong arguments of this kind, but there are two weak facts that could be relevant”. The 1973 paper focuses on the universality of the genetic code and the role that molybdenum plays in living organisms (I am likewise working on a history of molybdenum and the origins of life) which is more than one would expected given the abundance of molybdenum on the earth’s crust.

Crick and Orgel also suggest that the universe is sufficiently old that other intelligent civilizations could had arisen elsewhere. One of these other intelligent civilizations could have built a spaceship and seeded the universe with life. One can easily imagine a not too distant future where humans accept that our planet and all that lives within it will perish. In the unlikelihood that this is the only planet that harbors life in the universe its demise would leave a lifeless universe.

The origins of life remains an unresolved mystery. I argue that Crick and Orgel’s paper was meant both as a serious and plausible scientific alternative and as a means to criticize concurrent origins of life. Considering the life arose elsewhere could also free scientists studying the origin of life from trying to imitate the alleged conditions of a pre-biotic Earth. My ongoing research suggests that while Orgel abandoned Directed Panspermia, Crick continued to advocate for its viability and to argue in its favor. Our continued exploration of space will, presumably, continue to reveal the existence of organic compounds in space (and quite possibly life) and hence suggest that the universe may be beaming with life.

So. You never read the paper. You never read the book. You never reviewed the references. You put words into Dr. Crick's mouth and committed a fraud by deliberately misinterpreting his intentions.

Another day, another Creationist fraud.

To colleagues on the board - I guess we caught another one!

a reply to: dusty1

So, these beings who artificially created DNA...

...how did their life begin? Considering they were around to create DNA, it sounds as if there ARE in fact ways for life (life of some kind) to spontaneously develop.


The panspermia/abiogenesis question aside, the theory of evolution and the idea of natural selection never tried to explain how life began on Earth. It only attempts tp answer the question of speciation.

Personally, I think panspermia is a possibility, but that's not the same as saying that DNA could never develop on its own. DNA may have come from RNA, and both of those could have been around on Earth even before there was life on Earth. Viuruses (which are not living organisms) are a collection of proteins that could include RNA and DNA (which are also made of proteins). The precursors to viruses -- protoviruses -- could have existed as self-replicating bundles of proteins. These proteins were not alive, but eventually could have grown more complex and became what we consider "life".

Those protoviruses, or even the life that may have come afterwards, potentially could have come here via an asteroid.



But like I said, (a) If some other being artificially created us, then who created them? and (b) panspermia v. abiogenesis has very little, if anything, to do with the evolution of species.

a reply to: dusty1

And please take note of this quote:

Crick and Orgel also suggest that the universe is sufficiently old

Francis Crick is not a crackpot Creationist. And since you evidently consider him to be a first rate scientist, I guess you and your ilk will have to change your views on the age of the universe and Earth.

originally posted by: dusty1
a reply to: whereislogic


These guys are hilarious.


Sir Francis Crick the co discoverer of DNA came to realize that it is IMPOSSIBLE for DNA to have formed on its own.

He came to believe that Panspermia was the explanation for life on earth.


They can say what they want, but abiogenesis is impossible.

Evolution is a religious belief that goes back to ancient India. Darwin was simply parroting a belief system that was thousands of years old.

And since we're on the subject of accuracy in science literature, please post a link to a paper where Dr. Crick said:

"Sir Francis Crick the co discoverer of DNA came to realize that it is IMPOSSIBLE for DNA to have formed on its own. He came to believe that Panspermia was the explanation for life on earth."

I suspect you'll disappear into the aether like all the others when they're caught.

But congratulations - your posts confirm everything we've said about Creationists - you're the lame, lazy and the crazy (mostly lazy) riding your dinosaurs into oblivion.

a reply to: dusty1

All fine and dandy. but none of that touches on your lie that I was requesting a citation for. The one where you claim that Crick made some ridiculous claim that DNA couldn't have formed on its own. He never said it. Panspermia...Abiogenesis... neither are relevant to the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. It only deals with changes in allele frequency through mutations AFTER life arose on Earth. When you provide citations for something other than for the quote that you were called out on, its just further intellectual dishonesty. Apparently you're a hypocrite in addition to being willfully ignorant.

a reply to: dusty1

Care to prove your comment? Evolution is about how life changes not about how it began! Thus a creator might be an option. Speaking as a scientist who is polytheistally religious. I have no problem with evolution. Mind you I am suspect to creationists as I believe in many gods

a reply to: dusty1

Like hell they are. Do you have more sources?

a reply to: Phantom423

To colleagues on the board

Did you say colleagues?

So. You never read the paper. You never read the book. You never reviewed the references.

Actually I did sunshine.

I provided a link to the paper already.

I liked the part where Crick talked about spaceships.

In Life Itself, he spends a lot of time talking about the complexities of life and how improbable it would be for it to occur by chance.

Why the hell do you think he wrote a paper and a book about Directed Panspermia?


Please see
Life Itself: Its Origins and Nature page 52, p85-86 and page 87

Buy the book.

Its a fascinating read.

a reply to: dusty1

I read the book. I read the papers. NOWHERE does he say anything of the sort that you posted.

So once again, where is it?????????????????????????????????????

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

But like I said, (a) If some other being artificially created us, then who created them? and (b) panspermia v. abiogenesis has very little, if anything, to do with the evolution of species.

The idea of panspermia kicks the can down the road a bit. I think the idea is that there may be other forms of life, that are not the same as us, or that conditions on another planet were more favorable.

Or, did other forms of life necessarily have to be created?


Honestly evolution is a ladder that needs something to brace against. I think Darwin and his contemporaries thought about the origins in relation to evolution with all its implications.


I really do believe that evolution is part of an ancient belief system going back to the Vedas.

Its all a conspiracy.

a reply to: dusty1

So where is it???????????????????????????

a reply to: dusty1

Please see Life Itself: Its Origins and Nature page 52, p85-86 and page 87 Buy the book. Its a fascinating read.

Where is it??????????????????????????????