It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Where does order come from in evolution?

page: 3
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2022 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Quadrivium




As long as humans are interpreting the science, you will not have unbiased results.


You don't understand how science works. It's the data that speaks to the truth. The scientist doesn't make them up or "interpret" the numbers. The numbers are the numbers and they are real. In science, as long as the data can be duplicated and confirmed, then it's real.


But I do understand.
The data does not speak.
The data is interpreted by a HUMAN mind be it a trained scientist or a layman.
It takes the living, breathing mind to interpret the data and the human mind is biased.



posted on Feb, 17 2022 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Quadrivium

If 1+1 = 2 and Pi is a real number, it doesn't require interpretation. Give me an example where data was misinterpreted by a "human".



posted on Feb, 17 2022 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Quadrivium

If 1+1 = 2 and Pi is a real number, it doesn't require interpretation. Give me an example where data was misinterpreted by a "human".


Seriously!?!


Just one?
Covid Vaccines.

But I am feeling generous, so let's see......
(Many can STILL be found in textbooks)
1. The Miller experiment.
2. Pepper Moths.
3. Geologic Column.
4. Embryonic Homology.
I honestly could go on but I will leave you with the following:


Published research findings are sometimes refuted by subsequent evidence, with ensuing confusion and disappointment. Refutation and controversy is seen across the range of research designs, from clinical trials and traditional epidemiological studies [1–3] to the most modern molecular research [4,5]. There is increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims [6–8]. However, this should not be surprising. It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false. Here I will examine the key factors that influence this problem and some corollaries thereof.


journals.plos.org.../journal.pmed.0020124

I will go further and say that YOU don't understand how science works.
You are looking at it from a non objective POV.
If the human mind was not created to interpret the very science, many hold so near & dear, there would only be random things.
The information would still be there but it would not be informative.



posted on Feb, 18 2022 @ 11:35 AM
link   
The earth gains energy from the sun. That's why complexity can arise. New energy on a daily basis coming to earth. This isn't complicated.



posted on Feb, 18 2022 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Toothache


This isn't complicated.


Evidently it is.

The question:

Where does order come from in evolution


Your answer:


The earth gains energy from the sun

edit on 18-2-2022 by Quadrivium because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2022 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quadrivium

If the human mind was not created to interpret the very science, many hold so near & dear, there would only be random things.
The information would still be there but it would not be informative.


A very good point that gets taken for granted. The fact we are able to observe patterns whatsoever shows the intricate order of the cosmos. All physical laws are very meticulously ordered so that biological organisms and cosmological structures can continue to exist


originally posted by: Toothache
The earth gains energy from the sun. That's why complexity can arise. New energy on a daily basis coming to earth. This isn't complicated.


Then there should be an experiment where sunlight can catalyze DNA or peptide polymerization in water... but there isn't. There isn't because DNA and peptide polymerization requires enzymatic catalysis in water. Life cannot come to be from non-life by random chance, it requires design.
edit on 18-2-2022 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2022 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Quadrivium
I discovered that the link in my previous post was not working.
Here is link to the same paper on the NCBI site.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...



posted on Feb, 20 2022 @ 01:27 AM
link   
No human witnessed the beginning of life on earth. Nor has anyone seen one kind of life evolve into another kind​—a reptile into a mammal, for example.* Therefore, we must rely on the available evidence to draw conclusions about the origin of life. And we need to let the evidence speak for itself rather than force it to say what we want it to say. (*: Although he firmly believed in evolution, biologist Ernst Mayr admitted that “the fossil record is one of discontinuities,” in that new types of organisms appear suddenly.)

Many atheists, however, view science through the lens of materialism​—a philosophy that assumes purely material causes for the origin of life. “We have a prior commitment . . . to materialism,” wrote evolutionist Richard C. Lewontin. “That materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” Hence, materialists embrace the only alternative they have​—evolution.

Religious people too may have preconceptions that distort their attitude toward science. For instance, some creationists cling to the erroneous notion that God formed the world in six literal days a few thousand years ago. Having made that prior commitment, they try to force the evidence to fit their extremely literal interpretation of the Bible. (See the parapraph “How Long Is a ‘Day’?” at the end of this comment.) People who have such extreme interpretations of both the Bible and science are left without satisfying answers when they try to seek evidence for their faith.

Which View Fits All the Facts?

With regard to the origin of the complex molecules that make up living organisms, some evolutionists believe the following:

1. Key elements somehow combined to form basic molecules.

2. Those molecules then linked together in the exact sequences required to form DNA, RNA, or protein with the capacity to store the information needed to carry out tasks essential to life.

3. The molecules somehow formed the specific sequences required to replicate themselves. Without replication, there can be neither evolutionary development nor, indeed, life itself.

How did the molecules of life form and acquire their amazing abilities without an intelligent designer? Evolutionary research fails to provide adequate explanations or satisfying answers to questions about the origin of life. In effect, those who deny the purposeful intervention of a Creator attribute godlike powers to mindless molecules and natural forces. (1 example from Stephen Hawking, where godlike powers are attributed to the force of gravity or the law of gravity; another example involves the argument often referred to with the word "necessity", as in the expression "chance and necessity", as if the forces of nature operate in the exact opposite direction as we are observing, see below, and that life emerging is the "inevitable" result of that. A word I'm quoting from the evolutionist Jeremy England for example. This video addresses the related "self-organization scenarios (Law)".)

What, though, do the facts indicate? The available evidence shows that instead of molecules developing into complex life-forms, the opposite is true: Physical laws dictate that complex things​—machines, houses, and even living cells—​in time break down. (Such decay is a result of what scientists call the second law of thermodynamics. Put simply, this law states that the natural tendency is for order to degenerate into disorder.) Yet, evolutionists say the opposite can happen. For example, the book Evolution for Dummies says that evolution occurred because the earth “gets loads of energy from the sun, and that energy is what powers the increase in complexity.”

To be sure, energy is needed to turn disorder into order​—for example, to assemble bricks, wood, and nails into a house. That energy, however, has to be carefully controlled and precisely directed because uncontrolled energy is more likely to speed up decay, just as the energy from the sun and the weather can hasten the deterioration of a building.* Those who believe in evolution cannot satisfactorily explain how energy is creatively directed.


On the other hand, when we view life and the universe as the work of a wise Creator who possesses an “abundance of dynamic energy,” we can explain not only the complexity of life’s information systems but also the finely tuned forces that govern matter itself, from vast galaxies to tiny atoms.—Isaiah 40:26.

Belief in a Creator also harmonizes with the now generally accepted view that the physical universe had a beginning. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” says Genesis 1:1.

Invariably, new discoveries tend to make the philosophy of materialism increasingly hard to defend, a fact that has moved some atheists to revise their views. Yes, some former atheists have come to the conclusion that the wonders of the universe are visible evidence of the “invisible qualities” and “eternal power” of our Creator, Jehovah God. (Romans 1:20)

“For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.”

*: from earlier (couldn't figure out where best to put this in). DNA can be altered by mutations, which can be caused by such things as radiation and certain chemicals. But these do not lead to new species.​—See the article “Is Evolution a Fact?” in the September 2006 issue of Awake!

What may also be of interest, is an article from Jonathan Wells posted 3 days ago, I'll share one noteworthy quote from an evolutionist mentioned in that article concerning the topic of “speciation”:

In 2002, evolutionary biologists Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan wrote, “Speciation, whether in the remote Galápagos, in the laboratory cages of the drosophilosophers [those who study fruit flies], or in the crowded sediments of the paleontologists, still has never been directly traced.”13 So evolution’s smoking gun is still missing.

Source: Top Problems with Evolution: Speciation | Evolution News

Lynn Margulis is famous for her so-called “endosymbiont hypothesis”, already also promoted under the term "the endosymbiotic theory” as I noticed when I googled for: hypothesis of endosymbiosis.

...

What do many scientists claim? All living cells fall into two major categories​—those with a nucleus and those without. Human, animal, and plant cells have a nucleus. Bacterial cells do not. Cells with a nucleus are called eukaryotic. Those without a nucleus are known as prokaryotic. Since prokaryotic cells are relatively less complex than eukaryotic cells, many believe that animal and plant cells must have evolved from bacterial cells.

In fact, many teach that for millions of years, some “simple” prokaryotic cells swallowed other cells but did not digest them. Instead, the theory goes, unintelligent “nature” figured out a way not only to make radical changes in the function of the ingested cells but also to keep the adapted cells inside of the “host” cell when it replicated.9* [No experimental evidence exists to show that such an event is possible.]

...

9. Encyclopædia Britannica, CD 2003, “Cell,” “The Mitochondrion and the Chloroplast,” subhead, “The Endosymbiont Hypothesis.”

Source: Is Any Form of Life Really Simple? (The Origin of Life—Five Questions Worth Asking)

So what business do some people have already promoting it to a “theory”, implying this is a scientific theory, when “no experimental evidence exists to show that such an event is [even] possible.” Let alone that it actually happened that way. Lynn Margulis was also the one who said:


(On evolutionary novelties by chance mutations: ) I have seen no evidence whatsoever that these changes can occur through the accumulation of gradual mutations.
A quote I often use when quoting evolutionists from Dr. Lönnig's website on the law of recurrent variation. Anyway...

HOW LONG IS A “DAY”?

In the Bible, the word “day” can refer to various periods of time. At Genesis 2:4, for example, the entire creative period of six “days” is spoken of as “the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.” Each day evidently involved a considerable length of time. Interestingly, while the Bible specifically mentions the end of each of the first six “days,” it makes no mention of the end of the seventh day. Why? That day is still in progress.​—Genesis 2:3; Hebrews 4:4-6, 11.
edit on 20-2-2022 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2022 @ 01:27 AM
link   
If not maintained, things tend to deteriorate.



posted on Feb, 20 2022 @ 02:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Toothache
The earth gains energy from the sun. That's why complexity can arise. New energy on a daily basis coming to earth. This isn't complicated.

Evolution for Dummies has spoken. (see bolded part in my previous commentary)

No need to give it any further thought or raise or address any objections. (as for example raised in the bolded part of my comment)

For those who submit to the faith (concerning evolutionary philosophies), it doesn't need to make sense when thought through. Apparently, many don't even think it through. "Understanding is not required, only obedience."- Lennier in Babylon 5:"The Parliament of Dreams"

Sometimes I wonder to what extent those who use such irrational, unthoughtful and unreasonable arguments in defense of their faith, are aware that these type of arguments in particular demonstrate perfectly the things I just pointed out. The more irrational, unthoughtful and unreasonable the arguments being used become (with the implication that the one using them might be under the impression that they are good arguments), the more obvious this becomes.

This one is right up there with the: 'oh yeah, then who created God?' perceived 'gotcha'-question, asked regarding a God that is claimed to have always existed as if it's a sensible question to ask in that situation. It shows that some people don't want to give it any reasonable thought, or have become incapable of doing so.*

*: probably because of all the propaganda, making them parrot arguments they've heard over and over from sources they trust and admire (teachers that tickle their ears as per 2 Tim 4:3,4), rather than think them through whether they actually make any sense or are any good, regardless of their source and those who are fond of promoting them as well (scientists and so-called "intellectuals" that many people look up to and admire, and who easily beguile their flocks into thinking these are good arguments, much like a guru impresses his students).

Energy from the Sun (in particular UV radiation) decomposes amino acids when they are not protected from UV radiation. So your argument just doesn't work as an argument to explain the emergence of specifically the complexity of the biomolecular machinery and technology that makes up life (with amino acids being important building blocks). Removing the vagueness in your argument as to what type of complexity we're actually talking about here, we're not talking about the complexity of snowflakes.

Chapter 4: Could Life Originate by Chance? (Life—How Did it Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?)

...

In 1953 Stanley Miller passed an electric spark through an “atmosphere” of hydrogen, methane, ammonia and water vapor. This produced some of the many amino acids that exist and that are the building blocks of proteins. ...

Miller assumed that earth’s primitive atmosphere was similar to the one in his experimental flask. Why? Because, as he and a co-worker later said: “The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing [no free oxygen in the atmosphere] conditions.”⁠6 Yet other evolutionists theorize that oxygen was present. The dilemma this creates for evolution is expressed by Hitching: “With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have got started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays.”⁠7

...

Would an “Organic Soup” Form?

How likely is it that the amino acids thought to have formed in the atmosphere would drift down and form an “organic soup” in the oceans? Not likely at all. The same energy that would split the simple compounds in the atmosphere would even more quickly decompose any complex amino acids that formed. Interestingly, in his experiment of passing an electric spark through an “atmosphere,” Miller saved the four amino acids he got only because he removed them from the area of the spark. Had he left them there, the spark would have decomposed them.

However, if it is assumed that amino acids somehow reached the oceans and were protected from the destructive ultraviolet radiation in the atmosphere, what then? Hitching explained: “Beneath the surface of the water there would not be enough energy to activate further chemical reactions; water in any case inhibits the growth of more complex molecules.”⁠8

So once amino acids are in the water, they must get out of it if they are to form larger molecules and evolve toward becoming proteins useful for the formation of life. But once they get out of the water, they are in the destructive ultraviolet light again! “In other words,” Hitching says, “the theoretical chances of getting through even this first and relatively easy stage [getting amino acids] in the evolution of life are forbidding.”⁠9

Although it commonly is asserted that life spontaneously arose in the oceans, bodies of water simply are not conducive to the necessary chemistry. Chemist Richard Dickerson explains: “It is therefore hard to see how polymerization [linking together smaller molecules to form bigger ones] could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primitive ocean, since the presence of water favors depolymerization [breaking up big molecules into simpler ones] rather than polymerization.”⁠10 Biochemist George Wald agrees with this view, stating: “Spontaneous dissolution is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis.” This means there would be no accumulation of organic soup! Wald believes this to be “the most stubborn problem that confronts us [evolutionists].”⁠11

...

References:

6. The Origins of Life on the Earth, by Stanley L. Miller and Leslie E. Orgel, 1974, p. 33.

7. The Neck of the Giraffe, by Francis Hitching, 1982, p. 65.

8. Ibid.

9. Ibid.

10. Scientific American, “Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life,” by Richard E. Dickerson, September 1978, p. 75.

11. Scientific American, “The Origin of Life,” by George Wald, August 1954, pp. 49, 50.

Experiments are often rigged to give the desired results. Many scientists acknowledge that the experimenter can ‘manipulate the outcome profoundly,’ and ‘his intelligence can be involved so as to prejudice the experiment.’(⁠4) Miller’s atmosphere was used in most of the experiments that followed his, not because it was logical or even probable, but because “it was conducive to evolutionary experiments,” and “the success of the laboratory experiments recommends it.”⁠(5)

Nevertheless, evolutionists hailed Miller’s feat as a great breakthrough. Many experiments followed, using various energy sources and different raw materials. Through much manipulation and doctoring, and ignoring the conditions existing in a natural environment, scientists in their rigidly controlled laboratory experiments obtained additional organic chemicals relevant to life. They made a Mount Everest out of Miller’s molehill. It opened the way for an organic soup of life’s building blocks to accumulate in the ocean. Or did it?

Miller’s molehill was flawed, and with its demise their Mount Everest collapsed. Miller used a spark to break up the simple chemicals in his atmosphere to allow amino acids to form. But this spark would even more quickly have shattered the amino acids! So again Miller rigged his experiment: He built a trap in his apparatus to store the acids as soon as they formed, to save them from the spark. Scientists claim, however, that in the early earth the amino acids would have escaped the lightning or ultraviolet rays by plunging into the ocean. Thus evolutionists seek to save the soup.

But for several reasons, to no avail. Amino acids are not stable in water and in the ancient ocean would exist in only negligible quantities. If the organic soup had ever existed, some of its compounds would have been trapped in sedimentary rocks, but in spite of 20 years of searching, “the earliest rocks have failed to yield any evidence of a prebiotic soup.” Yet “the existence of a prebiotic soup is crucial.” So “it comes as . . . a shock to realize that there is absolutely no positive evidence for its existence.”⁠6

4. Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide, p. 103.
5. Technology Review, April 1981, R. C. Cowen, p. 8; Science 210, R. A. Kerr, 1980, p. 42. (Both quotes taken from The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, 1984, p. 76.)
6. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, by Michael Denton, 1985, pp. 260-1, 263; Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide, pp. 112-13.
edit on 20-2-2022 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2022 @ 05:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Toothache
The earth gains energy from the sun. That's why complexity can arise. New energy on a daily basis coming to earth. This isn't complicated.

Did anyone else notice that neoholographic did not use the word "complexity"*? His question in the title uses the word "order". Yet Tootache still brings up the standardized argument concerning "the increase in complexity" as the book Evolution for Dummies puts it. In response to the OP. (*: in fact, I searched the first 2 pages for "complex" and did not get a single result, Toothache was the first result on page 3)

Telling if one is aware what has happened involving the term "complexity" in this context of the origin of life. Where the complexity of biomolecular machinery and systems of machinery are compared to the complexity in snowflakes and the likes (mixing apples and oranges). Long story, snowflakes are completely irrelevant in this discussion, but you go "look at a snowflake" mr. Krauss (3:11, 3:34). More standardized reasoning and modus operandi:

Notice how he equates philosophical naturalism (a.k.a. materialism) and methodological naturalism (basically the same thing) with "science", at 9:01. Re-defining the meaning of the word "science", like he has also attempted to do with "nothing". More standardized modus operandi.

"Evolution" is another word where they like to capitalize on the ambiguity of language, in order to obscure the issues with evolutionary philosophies, throw red herrings, deflect, and distract from inconvenient facts. Sifting the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others. They also distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths.
edit on 20-2-2022 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2022 @ 06:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
...
5. Technology Review, April 1981, R. C. Cowen, p. 8; Science 210, R. A. Kerr, 1980, p. 42. (Both quotes taken from The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, 1984, p. 76.)
6. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, by Michael Denton, 1985, pp. 260-1, 263; Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide, pp. 112-13.

And before someone complains about the dates and argues that these issues are outdated...

None of these problems for their materialistic evolutionary storyline have gone away, been solved, or even properly addressed. Apart from the occasional admissions as quoted from evolutionists in Chapter 4 there, it's mostly swept under the rug (and the situation hasn't changed in the last 40 years). Just like the law of recurrent variation, another inconvenient fact concealed from the flock.

All competent biologists acknowledge the limited nature of the variation breeders can produce, although they do not like to discuss it much when grinding the evolutionary ax.

William R. Fix

Source: W.-E. Loennig: Gesetz der rekurrenten Variation
edit on 20-2-2022 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2022 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm




The Bible is the WORD OF GOD.


The Bible is the word of man, interpreted by the stories of other men who said they spoke with God.

Not to say there are not some great lessons in there, however God did not write them down and sign them.

God certainly exists, but it does not talk or listen and is not human. God is probably Hydrogen.



posted on Feb, 23 2022 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Why would a God with perfect knowledge feel things like anger and regret when things don't go his way?



posted on Feb, 23 2022 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: WakeUpBeer
For the same reason He gave us the ability to ask 'why'.
We have free will, doesn't mean He has to be happy about how we choose to use it.



posted on Feb, 23 2022 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Quadrivium

Sure, he doesn't have to be happy about our choices. But we're talking about a God that killed all but seven people on the planet because he was upset. If he had perfect knowledge, he could have foreseen all that and skipped the # up.

Free will, free will that he manipulates multiple times in the Bible.

So I ask, "why" would he do that and half the other things in the Bible, if he supposedly cherishes free will?

But I digress.




edit on 2-23-2022 by WakeUpBeer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2022 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: WakeUpBeer


But we're talking about a God that killed all but seven people on the planet because he was upset.


Maybe research the why He did so.

I will give you a hint "Noah was perfect in his generations", Genesis 6:1-12.



posted on Feb, 23 2022 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Quadrivium

I understand that perspective. But that isn't my point. I don't care about the why.

I care about the contradictions with the narratives.

The point was that, God intervenes (for good or ill) with man's free will.

If it was about the creation, and giving them free will, and seeing where it goes...

Why intervene. I mean, I get it. The closest I'll ever get to something like that would be creative modes in video games. My "issue" has more to do with the claim that all evil or negative things are the result of man, and man's free will to choose between the two. But that's not the case, because God plays with free will.

"I will send them strong delusions, so that they may believe a lie"

"And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet."

"I will harden his heart, so that he shall not let the people go."

So basically, I find myself asking.. Which is it? Does God respect the free will he gives us, or not?

It would seem not. I probably sound like I'm just being a cheeky atheist, but it is an honest observation. If the argument is God gives us free will, and hurts from fallible human greed, etc. whathaveyou, than how do explain God playing with that supposed free will? Doesn't seem so free, from my current thinking.

It's not free, if it's manipulated and turned against people.


edit on 2-23-2022 by WakeUpBeer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2022 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
Why would a God with perfect knowledge feel things like anger and regret when things don't go his way?


Why would a Dad experience anger and regret when their child misbehaves?



posted on Feb, 23 2022 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Man is not perfect or omniscient.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join