General > Biology

Laugh at the ID-ers

<< < (2/3) > >>

PurpleYouko:

--- Quote ---Not true. There's quite a lot of active research here by main stream evolutionists. My 2004 Evolution text book (Evolutionary Analysis - Freeman and Herron) devotes an entire chapter to various theories and areas of active research on like origin. The term RNA World for example, refers to one of the prominant theories of a "more primintive replicator" which predated DNA
--- End quote ---
If it is a self replicator then it is very likely still contained under the definition of "life"
I am aware that there are several non living chemicals that "self replicate".
Where non-life stops and life starts is a fine line but I stick by my statement that the TOE deals solely with life and doesn't care where it came from.
This is why evolution is accepted by the catholic Church while Abiogenesis is most certainly not.
Evolutionary scientists may well also be involved in abiogenesis research but it remains a totally different field of study.

I am a chemist and I am involved in certain aspect of physics research such as plasma formation wrt mass spectrometry. Doesn't make it chemistry though does it.

I have co-authored a number of publications relating to trade routes and artifact sources in pre-historic South America. Doesn't make it chemistry though.

PurpleYouko:
If you want a really good laugh, take a look at this wonderfull bit of logical thinking. it was sent to me by an Islamic friend who was attempting to show why evolution is not true.

The number of absolute howlers in just the first paragrah is unbelievable.
I defy anyone to read this and keep a straight face  

Numsgil:

--- Quote from: PurpleYouko ---Textbooks say that? I haven't really read a lot of text books on the subject but I have only ever seen this view of evolution from creationist web sites.
--- End quote ---

That's certainly the view that my Highschool Biology class taught me.  Along with my Freshman college textbook.  Not that they exactly say "A to B to C", but the examples they use are that cut and dry.  Especially when it comes to Human evolution.  It's always A to B to C.

Or rather C from B from A.  It's presented backwards, with the great deal of gray and fuzziness stripped from it.  If I had to call it something, I'd call it a cross between Lamarckian evolution and Natural selection under the guise of natural selection.  Humans used their brains more, so those with big brains survive.

In my experience, there is seldom any gradual ramping up of a trait over time, except during co-evolution.  During arms races.  Generally, it's far more stochatic and chaotic than my Bio classes would have me believe.

Since most lay people probably have only had a Highshool class, and maybe a college one, that's the view most people have, regardless of wether they're creationist or not.


--- Quote ---Come on Num. Now you are making the same crappy argument that I and others fend off all the time.  
Please note that Evolutions says absolutely nothing about something arising from nothing.
Pre-existing life is a pre-requisite for the TOE. "Evolutionists" don't give a rat's ass where that life initially came from. Maybe God created the first uni-celled organisms. Maybe they spontaneously formed by "Abiogenesis" (a completely different field of study)
--- End quote ---

But that's the far more interesting question isn't it?  The requirements for successful evolution.  When does evolution succumb to noise?  What time frame does it require to reach X level complexity and diversification given Y starting conditions.  How do you measure complexity?  What exactly is emergence?  (Emergence is still very much a black science, a sort of magic wand to wave when things get incalcuably complex).

EricL:
I don't view life / non-life as a fine line, anymore than there is some exact temperature at which chemstry ceases and becomes plamsa dynamics or where one species stops and another starts.  It's a continuem, most things are.  Our use of descrete words and definitions when referring to continious porocesses can get use in trouble if we arn't careful.

It's indicitive of IDer's to try to find or create exact boundaries and ascribe tremendous moment to such where none exist.   Yes, there was an inital replicator where before there was none.  Likely such came into being and was destroyed many times over before our common ancestor arrived and succeeded, through luck or better chemstry.  And yes, we need shared definitions and terms to form a common vocabulary in order to have a meaningful discussion.  But to draw an arbitrarly critical line and point to one thing on each side and say this is life and that is not and purscribe some momentous meaning to that line and the term "life" strikes me as... arbitrary and overly exacting.  Continious refinement would lead us to the point where we could point to two almost identical polymer molecules which differ in a single, minute way and say this one is life and that one is not.  I'm much more comfortable ascribing less loaded, more descriptive definitions, saying for example, this one replicates and this one does not.


Anyway, we agree 100% in principle and for the most part in practice.

Numsgil:
That's exactly what I was trying to say Eric, thanks for articulating it better than I could.

Strict and exact lines, strict discretization, leads only to trouble.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page