Why will people argue Creation vs. Evolution when it is possible to have both?

Originally posted by salainen

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by salainen
If it was a high probability under the right conditions, you would think it would have happened at least a couple of times...

But the right conditions disappeared as soon as there was life to exploit the available resources..

I don't quite see how. Do you mean that life suddently exploded and was everywhere, or are you saying that the right conditions were only at that specific place where it occured, and by occuring the one chance was gone.

Suppose life started out as autocatalytic RNA molecules. For that to happen, among other things, free ribonucleotides for their spontaneous genesis would have been needed. As soon as the autocatalytic RNA molecules were there, there would have been heavy competition for these ribonucleotides, which would have restricted de novo genesis of autocatalytic RNA molecules. As to how many permissive locations existed (my guess: not that many) and to how likely genesis of aRNA molecules was (my guess: rare event), we can only speculate..

Originally posted by salainen
Had it failed, and the first or the first 1000 singe celled prokaryotes died, well we wouldn't be here. Or if they had died, the opportunity for some other life would have opened?

All this happened long before cellular life.

Originally posted by colin42
I look at it like this. If you picture the first organism to leave the water and survive at the waters edge. Although the environment would be hostile there would be no competition for any food source found there or any land based predators. So the forces that would shape it would be mainly the drier environment so any changes that give advantage here would be quickly passed into the population. Different food sources again with no competition would also influence selection and encourage the species to diverge at a relatively accelerated rate. So again not random.

We see this in the fossil record so I see no reason to think the rate of change would be smaller, in fact I see the opposite as true. I can see no case to conclude change would be more random at all as it is still. Small changes, selected for by the environment over time.

What about before any organisms left the water? According to the current timeline, the first animals to leave the water did so less than 600 million years ago. Prokaryotes have been around for more than 6 billion years. How did their selection work? I suppose they did have over a billion years to evolve into eukaryotes, compared to the 600 million years or so that it took simple land animals to evolve into humans, but in my opinion it would have been difficult for them to select for any traits due to the fact that the didn't choose their mates, and the only way to evolve would have been either to reduce those who replicate less, and increase those who replicate fast, and eliminate those who don't replicate. I think the timeline itself shows that the efficiency of selection is increasing very fast. I mean prokaryotes replicate very fast, but it took them a very long time to evolve to eukaryotes, yet even though animals replicate extremely slowly it took them a lot less time to evolve from a simple land animal to a human.

Originally posted by rhinoceros
All this happened long before cellular life.

So there were lots of self-replicating RNA and they all together evolved into prokaryotes, so that thre were infact many first prokaryotes, not just one or two?

reply to post by SplitInfinity


It's just not possible, there is no proof that anything can evolve into something else, its all in the imagination of the author. It is quite funny how there is no proof of new species being created, only that they are newly found.

Clearly the only thing that allows evoution to exist is imagination, and a lot of it. Sure some things have been found to adapt but thats a far cry from proving they have evolved. Evolution was only allowed to include adaptation with zero proof. There is also no proof that any changes are all part of the bigger network known as evolution, again its all in the authors mind.

You should pick up a history book like the bible long before you should consider a biology book that can't prove history.

Tooth you are the last person to be lecturing about proof. You have been busted in every thread for spreading dissinfo and outright lies. You have to be the least credible person on here. You have over 5,000 posts and less than 400 stars that has to be a record. Not that stars matter all that much but honestly there is somthing wrong there.

Before anyone here follows Tooth down the wrong path do yourself a favor and check his post history. For that matter Google Tooth’s Folly and see his theory which he presented.

Tooth has not grasped the definition of evolution even though it has been explained to him over a hundred times. He rejects the concept of abiogenesis.

There is plenty of proof for evolution and it is observable today especially in microorganisms. Evolution is the explanation of bio diversity in the world abiogenesis is the explanation for the beginning of life.

Don’t take my word for it look it up yourself and beware of those who claim to have all the answers. Beware of people who believe cabbits are real.

cabbits

reply to post by Grimpachi


Evolution is ONLY observed in microrganisms. It's proof that its actually adaptation not evolution.

There is nothing wrong with my credibility. Just because a handfull of evolutionists try to tarnish my name doesn't mean its actually tarnished.

I understand evolution perfectly fine, and I have explained this dozens of times. I just don't accept it, there is a big difference.

reply to post by itsthetooth

I understand evolution perfectly fine

You think that the fact that abiogenesis doesn't occur in jars of peanut butter disproves evolution. You most certainly do not "understand evolution perfectly fine".

reply to post by iterationzero

You think that the fact that abiogenesis doesn't occur in jars of peanut butter disproves evolution. You most certainly do not "understand evolution perfectly fine".

It's an extreme example but yes. I see your not offering any exact reasons as to why it can't happen in a jar of peanut butter. I'm looking at the fact that there is no proof as to why it can happen anywhere else.

Just to show you how much of a crock evolution is, look at this definition of abiogenesis.

abiogenesis
Web definitions
a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter.

abiogenesis

As you can see, abiogenesis is hypothetical, its not even a proven theory.

reply to post by itsthetooth

It's an extreme example but yes. I see your not offering any exact reasons as to why it can't happen in a jar of peanut butter.

Why do I need to? The conditions under which abiogenesis were hypothesized to happen bear absolutely no similarity to those in a jar of peanut butter. Are you under the impression that the primordial conditions most commonly associated with abiogenesis are similar to those found in a jar of peanut butter?

I'm looking at the fact that there is no proof as to why it can happen anywhere else.

The original Miller-Urey experiment and all of the subsequent work done building upon it gives strong evidence to the contrary.

Just to show you how much of a crock evolution is, look at this definition of abiogenesis.

Why do we need to look at the definition of abiogenesis with regard to evolution? Are you under the impression that abiogenesis and evolution are the same thing?

As you can see, abiogenesis is hypothetical, its not even a proven theory.

Specifically, I have never seen any reputable source claim that abiogenesis is more than a hypothesis at this point in time. More generally, are you still under the impression that there is any such thing as a "proven theory" in science?

Your continued failing efforts to effectively rebut any facet of evolution are still based on nothing more than your misunderstandings and false impressions about science in general and evolution in particular.

You do not "understand evolution perfectly fine".

reply to post by iterationzero

It's an extreme example but yes. I see your not offering any exact reasons as to why it can't happen in a jar of peanut butter.

Why do I need to? The conditions under which abiogenesis were hypothesized to happen bear absolutely no similarity to those in a jar of peanut butter. Are you under the impression that the primordial conditions most commonly associated with abiogenesis are similar to those found in a jar of peanut butter?

Well seeing how it isn't even a proven theory, whos to say what best conditions are for creating anything?

I'm looking at the fact that there is no proof as to why it can happen anywhere else.

The original Miller-Urey experiment and all of the subsequent work done building upon it gives strong evidence to the contrary.

So your impressed that someone was able to polish a turd?

Just to show you how much of a crock evolution is, look at this definition of abiogenesis.

Why do we need to look at the definition of abiogenesis with regard to evolution? Are you under the impression that abiogenesis and evolution are the same thing?

Not at all, I do just look at it like its just another step in the every growing mass of unproven claims.

As you can see, abiogenesis is hypothetical, its not even a proven theory.

Specifically, I have never seen any reputable source claim that abiogenesis is more than a hypothesis at this point in time. More generally, are you still under the impression that there is any such thing as a "proven theory" in science?

Your continued failing efforts to effectively rebut any facet of evolution are still based on nothing more than your misunderstandings and false impressions about science in general and evolution in particular.

You do not "understand evolution perfectly fine".

I understand just as much as anyone else does with the exception of the use of the words, may, possible, appears, and so on. It appears that evolutionists on this thread accept those words to mean they have confirmed evolution, but I know better.

reply to post by itsthetooth

I understand just as much as anyone else does with the exception of the use of the words, may, possible, appears, and so on. It appears that evolutionists on this thread accept those words to mean they have confirmed evolution, but I know better.

It is blatantly clear that tooth has no idea what the word evolution means as used in science.

Tooth has claimed that rabbits and cats can breed to make cabbits.
Tooth has stated that a caterpillar changing into a butterfly is an instance of one species turning into another.

There is nothing wrong with my credibility. Just because a handfull of evolutionists try to tarnish my name doesn't mean its actually tarnished.

You managed that all by yourself. No one needed to do anything but watch.

Evolution is a fact. There are theories to explain the fact of evolution.

reply to post by stereologist

Evolution is a fact. There are theories to explain the fact of evolution.

Would you mind explaining the evolution of stupidity in a species that is smart enough to build a space-faring vessel that works?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to [url= by stereologist[/url]

 

Evolution is a fact. There are theories to explain the fact of evolution.

Would you mind explaining the evolution of stupidity in a species that is smart enough to build a space-faring vessel that works?

Genetic diversity

reply to post by Prezbo369


And that explains the warning labels on jars of peanuts?

"Warning: May Contain Nuts!"

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by stereologist

 

Evolution is a fact. There are theories to explain the fact of evolution.

Would you mind explaining the evolution of stupidity in a species that is smart enough to build a space-faring vessel that works?

edit on 18-3-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

All things created evolve one way or another.

When did the earth begin to be peopled?

"In the beginning all was chaos; the elements were mixed up in a state of confusion. Gradually those elements settled into their proper places, and then appeared the orders of living beings appropriate to the successive states of the globe."

Whence came the living beings that appeared upon the earth?

"The germs of these were contained in the earth itself, awaiting the favorable moment for their development. The organic principles came together on the cessation of the force which held them asunder, and those principles formed the germs of all the living beings that have peopled the earth. Those germs remained latent and inert, like the chrysalis and the seed of plants, until the arrival of the proper moment for the vivification of each species. The beings of each species then came together and multiplied."

Where were the organic elements before the formation of the earth?

"They existed, so to say in the fluidic state, in space, in the midst of the spirits, or in other planets, awaiting the creation of the earth in order to begin a new existence on a new globe."

Chemistry shows us the molecules of inorganic bodies uniting to produce crystals of regular forms that are invariable for each species, as soon as those molecules find themselves in the conditions necessary to their combination. The slightest disturbance of those conditions suffices to prevent the union of the material elements, or, at least, to prevent the regular arrangement of the latter which constitutes the crystal. Why should not the same action take place among the organic elements? we preserve for years the seeds of plants and of animals, which are only vivified at a certain temperature and under certain conditions: grains of wheat have been seen to germinate after the lapse of centuries.

There is, then, in seeds a latent principle of vitality, which only awaits the concourse of favorable circumstances to develop itself. May not that which takes place under our eyes every day have also taken place at the origin of the globe? Does this view of the formation of living beings brought forth out of chaos by the action of the forces of nature itself detract in any way from the glory of God? So far from doing this, the view of creation thus presented to us is more consonant than any other with our sense of the vastness of His power exerting its sway over all the worlds of infinity through the action of universal laws. This theory, it is true, does not solve the problem of the origin of the vital elements, but nature has mysteries which it is as yet impossible for us to explain.

-Kardec

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Would you mind explaining the evolution of stupidity in a species that is smart enough to build a space-faring vessel that works?

You question appears to be rather pointless. I will point out that:

1. Evolution is not goal oriented.
2. Stupidity is a state which is a measure of an individual

reply to post by Shadow Herder

All things created evolve one way or another.

Individuals do not with respect to genetic diversity.

reply to post by stereologist

You question appears to be rather pointless.

My question appears to be a jest disguised as a query. More to the point, it appears to be a veiled jab at the nature of the discussion and a possible allusion to the inevitable stalemate that will result as a product of two equally stubborn parties coming to a head at a topic that has stymied far more intelligent men than yourselves - otherwise, this conversation would have been dealt with on the battlefield of scientific debate, rather than conspiracy rats fighting over it like their last moldy meal.

But if you wanted to take it seriously, be my guest. I'll just sit back and laugh uproariously at the mayhem.

reply to post by stereologist

I understand just as much as anyone else does with the exception of the use of the words, may, possible, appears, and so on. It appears that evolutionists on this thread accept those words to mean they have confirmed evolution, but I know better.

It is blatantly clear that tooth has no idea what the word evolution means as used in science.

Tooth has claimed that rabbits and cats can breed to make cabbits.
Tooth has stated that a caterpillar changing into a butterfly is an instance of one species turning into another.


There is nothing wrong with my credibility. Just because a handfull of evolutionists try to tarnish my name doesn't mean its actually tarnished.

You managed that all by yourself. No one needed to do anything but watch.

Evolution is a fact. There are theories to explain the fact of evolution.

Based on everthing that I have read, all of which I was sent to by ATS members, evolution is a hypothesis.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to [url= by stereologist[/url]

 

I understand just as much as anyone else does with the exception of the use of the words, may, possible, appears, and so on. It appears that evolutionists on this thread accept those words to mean they have confirmed evolution, but I know better.

It is blatantly clear that tooth has no idea what the word evolution means as used in science.

Tooth has claimed that rabbits and cats can breed to make cabbits.
Tooth has stated that a caterpillar changing into a butterfly is an instance of one species turning into another.


There is nothing wrong with my credibility. Just because a handfull of evolutionists try to tarnish my name doesn't mean its actually tarnished.

You managed that all by yourself. No one needed to do anything but watch.

Evolution is a fact. There are theories to explain the fact of evolution.

Based on everthing that I have read, all of which I was sent to by ATS members, evolution is a hypothesis.

This kind of delusion and self deception is completely unworkable.