evolutionary theory wrang footprints

[Mutty]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

VERY short video that highlights what the 12 part video
Monk provided was speaking about.


<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Plwl3m6LMws"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Plwl3m6LMws" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>

[jah_yout]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

^IMO that video accomplishes nothing;

i also oppose teaching intelligent design in classrooms because it can't be proven...
but neither can it be proven that life came about through random-accidental occurrence;

i watched the videos monk posted; in fact i watched it when it came on TV;
their arguments are over-simplified into religion vs evolution...
like i said; something had to appear with the force called life before it could evolve; so evolution in itself does not explain the origin of life...
no matter how much they tout easily refutable theories, they can not explain the origin of life...in other words they simply can not definitively debunk 'intelligent design'...

simply dismissing creation myths &amp; fables found in religious texts which to common sense are clearly allegorical is not enough of a ground to stand on to debunk the theory of 'a creator'...

can someone please point me to the evolution theory's explanation regarding the origin of life?
how did it all start? how was this life force created/implemented/activated...

[Mutty]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">^IMO that video accomplishes nothing;

i also oppose teaching intelligent design in classrooms because it can't be proven...
but neither can it be proven that life came about through random-accidental occurrence;

i watched the videos monk posted; in fact i watched it when it came on TV;
their arguments are over-simplified into religion vs evolution...
like i said; something had to appear with the force called life before it could evolve; so evolution in itself does not explain the origin of life...
no matter how much they tout easily refutable theories, they can not explain the origin of life...in other words they simply can not definitively debunk 'intelligent design'...

simply dismissing creation myths &amp; fables found in religious texts which to common sense are clearly allegorical is not enough of a ground to stand on to debunk the theory of 'a creator'...

can someone please point me to the evolution theory's explanation regarding the origin of life?
how did it all start? how was this life force created/implemented/activated... </div></div>

It was not intended to accomplish anything other than to back up what Monk's videos touched on.

[jah_yout]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: f0rTyLeGz</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">do you have any theory on how the cell came to be?
it's the zillion dollar question:
what caused the life force in it?
evolution is later, because for evolution to happen life has to first exist...
do you have any theory on what caused the life force (independent movement, thought &amp; functions) to appear on earth? </div></div>
There was an article about Prussian Blue the other day that touches on your question JY &gt; http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1214121451.htm

And there is a famous experiment from the 50's that goes right to your question&gt; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%...rey_experiment The Miller–Urey experiment.




</div></div>


so they said:
&quot;<span style="font-style: italic">We have shown that when Prussian blue is dissolved in ammoniac solutions it produces hydrogen cyanide, a substance that <span style="font-weight: bold">could have</span> played a fundamental role in the creation of the first bio-organic molecules, as well as other precursors to the origin of life, such as urea, dimethylhydantoin and lactic acid,&quot; Marta Ruiz Bermejo, lead author of the study and a researcher at the Astrobiology Centre (CSIC-INTA), said.</span>

a very vague hypothesis...
it is already known that everything on earth is composed of elements found on said earth...those elements are merely reconstituted into different forms, amounts &amp; compounds...chemical reactions are the basis of all activity, so basically this hypothesis does not really say anything new or earth-shattering;

the miller-urey experiment merely shows that the universe contains all the components necessary to create life; it does not even come close to explaining how that life would have triggered &amp; come into being

[jah_yout]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

<span style="font-weight: bold">How did life get going on Earth? &quot;The short answer is we really don't know,&quot; Knoll acknowledges;</span>

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/beta/evolution/how-did-life-begin.html

Andrew H. Knoll (born 1951) is the Fisher Professor of Natural History and a Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University. He is best known for his work on Precambrian microfossils and using stable isotopes for stratigraphic correlation, but has longstanding interests in geobiology, paleobotany, and the planetary evolution of Mars. He is a member of the Organismic and Evolutionary Biology and Earth and Planetary Sciences faculty at Harvard and the National Academy of Sciences.

[jah_yout]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">evolution is a provable fact. it's overwhelming, the evidence staggering, the proofs are everywhere in our modern life.

if it were not true, you would be dead probably a thousand times over. in fact, many things which could not happen if not for evolutionary science being accurate and applicable to every day reality, I'm sure you applaud. <span style="font-weight: bold">Like overturning racist sentencing.</span>

you are just a little confused as to what 'theory' means, and what the theory of evolution states.

this video from nova paints a decent picture.
<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dNGeXjpL1Hg"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dNGeXjpL1Hg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>
</div></div>

i found the show lacking in real reasoning; they used over-simplified positions;
funny you should bring up race;

the evolution theory's champion- darwin...
wrote that the african (or &quot;negro&quot; as they called it) &amp; australian were lower on the evolutionary ladder than europeans (or &quot;white men&quot; as they put it)...somewhere between white men and apes...that has been debunked
what else could he have been wrong about?
there is no question species can evolve, but darwin kind of goes haywire with his theory...
many of his premises have also been scientifically challenged as well; i don't think you can state with such authority that 'evolution is a proven fact'...too blanket a statement;
for some can read that as 'intelligent design has been proven impossible'...
if a harvard professor -andy knoll- does not know for sure...how can you?

[f0rTyLeGz]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">a very vague hypothesis...
it is already known that everything on earth is composed of elements found on said earth...those elements are merely reconstituted into different forms, amounts &amp; compounds...chemical reactions are the basis of all activity, so basically this hypothesis does not really say anything new or earth-shattering;</div></div>
Yes the article &quot;touches on&quot; your question.

One somethig that has not been mentioned I think is the vast amount of time that is involved as the chemical soup mixed and combined and went through pressures and hot vents lightning strikes. 'Thousands of millions of years' is a hard number to get our (mine for sure) brain around. Those flying petrsaurs endured and flew around for 150+ million years for example.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the miller-urey experiment merely shows that the universe contains all the components necessary to create life; it does not even come close to explaining how that life would have triggered &amp; come into being</div></div>
Sure... I'm just showing that science has been working on your question. Id be happy to see some experiments that try to show that there was an intelligent designer behind it all.

[Mutty]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

Great questions and point J.Y. What you have basically posited is broadly defined as an agnostic approach. In that sense, you, me, Monk nor anyone knows where life came from. We only know it has evolved. Something (as you imply) must have &quot;sparked&quot; it but none of us knows what that something is so we can all rest in the fact we are ALL ignorant. Case closed or is it?

That being said, is evolution about the START of life or simply how life has evolved? Aren't we then speaking of two entirely different things here - to be fair?

[R_C]

God of the gaps

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mutty</div><div class="ubbcode-body">... none of us knows what that something is so we can all rest in the fact we are ALL ignorant. Case closed or is it? </div></div>

Well Mutty as we know, these &quot;gaps&quot; in our our understanding have, since time immemorial, always been filled in with a variety of supernatural explanations, Intelligent Design being just the latest in a very long line...

[Mutty]

Re: God of the gaps

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rollin_Calf</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Well Mutty as we know, these &quot;gaps&quot; in our our understanding have, since time immemorial, always been filled in with a variety of supernatural explanations, Intelligent Design being just the latest in a very long line... </div></div>

Precisely! It's the default position for many.

In the videos Monk provided, there was a woman who said something to this effect:

<span style="font-style: italic">&quot;Right there in Genesis it says 'God created' and that's <span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold"></span>ALL</span> I need to know.&quot;</span>

If I am not mistaken, the scientist is content to say he/she does not know which drives him/her to keep searching, seeking testing.

[rudemonk]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
i found the show lacking in real reasoning; they used over-simplified positions;
</div></div>

well, derek was in all caps asking for simplicity.

but when i pointed out the retroviral scars in our genome, it didn't seem to register.

that gets complicated, but it proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that man and ape share common descent.

just like if you had a genetic scar, your kids would inherit it, and we could tell they were your kids because of their DNA.

Did you see the chart? It shows you how there can still be fish, and yet evolution from fish.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
funny you should bring up race;

the evolution theory's champion- darwin...
wrote that the african (or &quot;negro&quot; as they called it) &amp; australian were lower on the evolutionary ladder than europeans (or &quot;white men&quot; as they put it)...somewhere between white men and apes...that has been debunked
what else could he have been wrong about?
</div></div>

well we can't help what people are. I don't know if Darwin was really quoted as saying that, I think there is a bit of controversy about it. But for the sake of argument, let's say he was a Grand Dragon of the KKK. So he was wrong about what is racist in his predictions, and the thing to realize here is that it's not anything other than other scientists <span style="font-style: italic">testing</span> his conclusions, that shows he is wrong, if those were his views. However unpalatable they may have been. what you are suggesting is that cars won't work, because Ford held irresponsibly wrong views and irrationally hated Jews.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
there is no question species can evolve, but darwin kind of goes haywire with his theory...
many of his premises have also been scientifically challenged as well; i don't think you can state with such authority that 'evolution is a proven fact'...too blanket a statement;

</div></div>

Do you want the simple or do you want the complex? Of course I can emphatically state it's proven as fact. I've been repeatedly saying it, and offering you the concrete proof. And it really is proof. It's right there in the genome. There is only one way to get HERVs, genetic material is passed down. We have like a dozen HERVs.

There have in fact been challenges to evolutionary theory, but they've never yet falsified it. Never. Not once. Oh something like a set of footprints will come along, but nothing to change the fact of evolution.

Did you see where you asked for transitional fossils? And in the simple NOVA special they provided just one example? A fish with legs? But the thing to realize here is that there are gazillions of intermediate fossils.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">for some can read that as 'intelligent design has been proven impossible'...
if a harvard professor -andy knoll- does not know for sure...how can you?
</div></div>

you're getting him jumbled up. he's not saying anything about 'intelligent' design, or design from the perspective that someone mapped everything out. he's saying we don't know yet, how life came into existence from pre-biotic earth.

[rudemonk]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
a very vague hypothesis...
it is already known that everything on earth is composed of elements found on said earth...those elements are merely reconstituted into different forms, amounts &amp; compounds...chemical reactions are the basis of all activity, so basically this hypothesis does not really say anything new or earth-shattering;

the miller-urey experiment merely shows that the universe contains all the components necessary to create life; it does not even come close to explaining how that life would have triggered &amp; come into being

</div></div>

we're way beyond miller-urey.

actually it seems a lot of organic material comes to earth from extraplanetory sources. hope you like classical.

<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/U6QYDdgP9eg"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/U6QYDdgP9eg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>

[rudemonk]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rollin_Calf</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The last lecture I saw/listened to was the one he did in Geneva last year (see here ). Is that the one you are referring to ?

I agree...we could do an entire thread on Hawkins !

He's supposed to be at Caltech in March..barring illness. </div></div>

I hope u get a chance to go! That would be like going to see pavarotti.

[rudemonk]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints

sorry man, just going back thru the thread now.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
so it would be fair to say they are at different stages of their evolutionary journey; so out of these millions of species some intermediaries would be found at a fairly common rate, no?
</div></div>

the theory of evolution- IF correct - would predict that we would see in the fossil record, intermediate forms.

and that is indeed, *exactly* what we find, and are finding.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

and why did some choose to evolve while others did not?
why do fish still suffocate in air?
why man still drown?
shouldn't we have evolved past that by now? i would like to be able to fly...why have we not evolved that?
why can't we reproduce with in any of these creatures we supposedly evolved from?</div></div>

ok. first, nothing 'chooses' to evolve. it's not like there is a list of things you can evolve to. evolution works because of environmental pressures and random mutations. over millions of years in some cases. modern humans have only been here a blink of an evolutionary eye.

now, you asked for complicated stuff, so please bear with me. earlier I used an example of desert mice. I'll try and keep it short.

in the environment of these mice, there are big sections of dark rock. the mice are mostly light colored, mostly white.

now in this habitat there are also predatory birds. hawks. the hawks make easy pickings on the mice, when they cross the dark rocks. they stick out like a fat kid looking at cake on the kitchen counter.

well, what evolution predicts is that eventually, the mice will evolve a protective trait, to help them avoid hawks. and that is exactly what started to happen.

one family of mice evolved- they mutated, when their genes were being replicated for their offspring, the code was skewed, and instead of light fur, the mice had dark fur. Now, those mice are immune from the natural pressure of the hawk. In evolutionary parlance, they've successfully adapted- thru no choice of their own mind you. Unless they go to the light colored area, they will make more and more dark colored mice. If they stay on the rocks, they're good. So now there are two populations of mice.

and THAT my friend, is how evolution works. that is also why it can be said there isn't any clear sense of 'intelligence' at work- because some of the adaptations aren't intelligent at all. they just don't prove fatal to the continuation of the species.

we can't reproduce with anything we've evolved from because we are new species. but so long as there is still variation in a species, you can reproduce. like dogs. huge variations, but they can mostly, and some might say, comically in some cases, make babies.

[rudemonk]

Re: evolutionary theory wrang footprints


if you watch the video about abiogenesis, you can see how things can evolve without there being 'life' per se.

saying that there is a life 'force' is faulty reasoning and not logical.

lots of things that are not alive evolve. that is one of the things that proves evolution. computers can evolve, complicated systems, chaos theory, etc. lots and lots of things.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
so let me ask you...the cell is the basic organism in life...do you have any theory on how the cell came to be?
it's the zillion dollar question:
what caused the life force in it?
evolution is later, because for evolution to happen life has to first exist...
do you have any theory on what caused the life force (independent movement, thought &amp; functions) to appear on earth? </div></div>