Theory of Evolution Should have never been a part of this game!

[Lincoln]

test.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Lincoln
General creation by an intelligent source does make predictions. I predict for example that no one will be able to solve the problem of the origination of the coded information contained in DNA using only chemical laws or the laws of physics.

First, you have not suggested an actual experiment.

Second, you don't suggest that fulfilment of such an event would falsify the Creator hypothesis.

Third, it is doubtful you would accept the results even from the cloned cyborg who hands you the results.

[Lincoln]

Thanks Provost,

I have seen that before but I will consider it again. I am sorry that you had to repeat yourself. I will get back to you. I think we are talking about two things though at first glance. See you tomorrow unless I can find time tonight.

[Lincoln]

and 4th Zachriel, You haven't solven't solved the problem yet so we can discuss the details of your reward after you do.

[Zachriel]

Networks

By the way, modern mathematics has demonstrated that certain networks will spontaneously form. In the specific case, certain molecues may spontaneously form self-replicating and self-sustaining groups. Once self-replication begins, then evolution takes over.

It does not take a millions monkeys pounding on a million typewriters.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Lincoln
and 4th Zachriel, You haven't solven't solved the problem yet so we can discuss the details of your reward after you do.

Just to be clear, abiogenesis is not a part of the Theory of Evolution. For all we know, the first life fell from space, was spontaneously created in the primeval ocean, was planted by aliens, or put there by God.

Darwin presented no evidence on abiogenesis, and it is irrelevant to the Theory of Evolution.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Lincoln
*snip*A “kind” of animal is exactly what Drako said it is. A dog as opposed to a cat. A giraffe as opposed to an elephant. A bird as opposed to a mouse. This is not to say that there cannot be variation in the same kind or dramatic changes such as a caterpillar to a butterfly or a pollywog to a frog. Nature is full of fantastic animals that cross a lot of boundaries that we set. Some plants for example are like animals so the definition is entirely subjective. I use the obviously different creatures where there is no dispute about boundaries. The essence of the theory of evolution is the assertion of dramatic changes over time. I have yet to see proof of any such dramatic changes. Variation and adaptability does not prove that evolution “is a fact”.

The other question which is similar to the above. *snip*

What you call a "Kind" is a generic human specification based on observation and to some degree real specific scientific definitions. A wolf kind of looks like a dog, but they are very different. Your definition doesn't work in this case, scientific definitions do.

I'll ask the question again. Give a specific definition of a 'Kind'.

The question regarding Quantum theory has nothing to do with the above. It has everything to do with the creation of DNA (or RNA or component proteins.)

It breaks your argument about DNA not being able to be formed.

A Quantum state is recursive forwards. What this means is that there are infinite states at any one given point in time, and then in each of those points, another infinite states.

What it means in terms of this reality is that even though initial combination of some form of DNA, RNA or other reproductive informational mechanism existed in our Quantum path. It doesn't matter if it was a rare occurance. Everything happened. You are merely perceiving one path of the result, in which DNA originated.

In some of the other paths, you also existed, but actually understand basic Quantum theory.

In still further Quantum paths... you and I were never born. In others... nothing was.

[Lincoln]

"Darwin presented no evidence on abiogenesis, and it is irrelevant to the Theory of Evolution."

You got that right. If I am out of place then I will bow out and do this on another thread someday. I only entered the discussion because I wanted to clear up some accusations made against Drako. Then the information thing got going. It does seem to be relevant though to even the theory of evolution. If however the origin is God then that kind of upsets the apple cart because it would be impossible to deny his further intervention within evolution or creation.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Lincoln:

A "kind" of animal is exactly what Drako said it is. A dog as opposed to a cat. A giraffe as opposed to an elephant. A bird as opposed to a mouse. This is not to say that there cannot be variation in the same kind or dramatic changes such as a caterpillar to a butterfly or a pollywog to a frog. Nature is full of fantastic animals that cross a lot of boundaries that we set. Some plants for example are like animals so the definition is entirely subjective. I use the obviously different creatures where there is no dispute about boundaries. The essence of the theory of evolution is the assertion of dramatic changes over time. I have yet to see proof of any such dramatic changes. Variation and adaptability does not prove that evolution "is a fact".

But dogs and cats are clearly the same "kind" (Carnivora). Giraffes, elephants and mice also belong with dogs and cats in the larger "kind" of Mammalia. Cast the net a little wider, and you include reptiles and birds... and so on. ALL living organisms can be smoothly slotted into the pattern of the evolutionary "Tree of Life", the branching pattern of common descent from shared ancestors.

And the fossil record supports this. As you follow the dog/wolf lineage back, you find that it joins the bear lineage. Further back, it merges with the cat lineage. And so on...

Now check out the DNA. The DNA of dogs is very similar to wolves, slightly less similar to bears, pretty close to cats. And so on...

All lving things belong to the same "kind", Lincoln. ALL of the evidence we have agrees on this. The overall pattern of common descent is undeniable: to reject this because of some trivial gap in the fossil record is like insisting that a 1000 piece jigsaw with three pieces missing cannot possibly represent a picture.

Evolution is fact. Common descent is fact. The only possible room for speculation is whether or not the fact of evolution is sufficient to account for the fact of common descent: it appears to be sufficient, but this cannot be proven.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Lincoln:

But dogs and cats are clearly the same "kind" (Carnivora). Giraffes, elephants and mice also belong with dogs and cats in the larger "kind" of Mammalia. Cast the net a little wider, and you include reptiles and birds... and so on. ALL living organisms can be smoothly slotted into the pattern of the evolutionary "Tree of Life", the branching pattern of common descent from shared ancestors.
*snip*

You shouldn't use the word "Kind" in scientific discussions with Creationists... they rely on ambiguity to forge any "kind" of an argument.

[Lincoln]

"In some of the other paths, you also existed, but actually understand basic Quantum theory.

In still further Quantum paths... you and I were never born. In others... nothing was."

This is too deep for me. I am born therefore I am. (You might want to write that down).

That is the best devinition of "kind" I can come up with. I never claimed is was a scientific definition. The word is from the Bible and it is different from today's definition of "species" so you can do what you want with that quagmire. My point is that Drako clearly pointed out what he meant and he was not refuted using his definition of the word.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Just to head off a possible creationist counter:

Creationists sometimes try to claim that the pattern of DNA simlarities simply reflects a similarity in design: for instance, the DNA of cats and dogs is similar only because they're both hairy warm-blooded quadrupedal carnivores.

However, the pattern of DNA similarities is too detailed for that. For instance, humans carry a gene for making vitamin C which has been rendered inactive by a specific harmful mutation. ALL primates carry this same gene, with the same defect that stops it working. Primates eat fruit, so it isn't a problem for us (except the unfortunate sailors who died of scurvy because of this defect).

Similarly, the design of birds is radically different to that of crocodiles, yet DNA analysis shows that crocs are more closely related to birds than they are to other reptiles like turtles. This can be predicted from evolution: birds, dinosaurs and crocodiles evolved from a specific group of reptiles, the archosaurs, which does not include turtles, lizards or snakes (which branched off earlier).

[MrBaggins]

No problem Lincoln.

Creationists often shout 'statistically improbable' but those claims mean nothing if the event happened in the past, especially if that past event was required for later events to occur. If it were not so, it would be a paradox.

The issue with using the word kind, is its ambiguity. Top level creationists use this word (it lends credence to evolution), and top level scientists deny its use as useful in defining flora and fauna. There has never been a record of "kinds" of animals. They are catagoried by family, genus and species.

If you want to argue specifics, you need to be specific.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


That's just not true Lincoln, the first selection pressure of the first self-replicating molecule (formation by chance, do I have to go into the apes on typewriters typing Shakespeare's works analogy again?). Then evolution kicks in, selection of superior self-replicating molecules. The obvious big jump in superiority is autocatalysis, ie, the structure of the nucleic acid means it has the enzymic activity to reproduce itself, this is why it is speculated that RNA was the first nucleic acid, as examples exist today of autocatalytic RNA. The second big leap was the association of protein. Proteins consisting of polypeptides make far superior enzymes (greater repertoire of properties of amino acids, greater structural possibilities), and the selection pressure for this protein-nucleic acid system rather than autocatalytic nucleic acid system makes the difference between survival and death. And the process rolls on once this desired relationship between protein and nucleic acid (for this to be successful, translation mechanisms have to exist to convert genetic data into protein). There is no data input required from an intelligent being, natural selection can account for it given a reasonable mutation rate. Most varieties will be deleterious and die away, but the odd one will be effective. Remember this is painfully slow, billions of years, the step from this success to humanity is very short in comparison (hundreds of millions of years).

Just consider the numbers involved before you close your mind and refuse to consider the most plausible theory.

A few quick questions PH,

How does “autocatalysis” and a random order of RNA produce a code along with a translation process?

How did the “the translation mechanism” come into existence?

You suggesting the self organization of tRNA. How did about 20 of them form themselves to match both the coded instructions in DNA and the appropriate units of the ribosomes?

How are the triplets discerned initially?

What selective advantage is there for one sequence of RNA or DNA over another if the code or the translation mechanism is unknown?

[Sarxis]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus


1) It was another blow to religious power against science (after heliocentrism). I may be biased, but I don't think that relgion meddling in science does any good at all. The two are virtual opposites.

2) It may have stimulated the discovery of genetics (evolutionists needed a mechanism to make eveloution work, and genetics fit perfectly).

3) There are other developments that have sprung from evoution, e.g. the genetic algorithms that everyone is bringing up, and also the idea that the universe was not created soly for the benefit of humans.

Unfortunately, you are correct in stating that staunch religious establishments can hinder technological progress.

But that still isn't enough to dismiss the creationism accounts. Afterall, they are just as varied as the scientific theories.