Gestapo Twin in Attendence
Posted on 08/28/2002 9:36:04 AM PDT by gdani
Translation into plain English: Trying to defend one brain-dead ideological doctrine is bad enough; who would want to defend two of them at the same time?
Seems to me that the statement " but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed." shows exactly what he means.
Yes it can be ruled out. If one looks at it in a reasonable manner it must be said that abiogenesis is impossible. I quite realize that just because every example of life arising has been shown to be from other life does not rule out the possibility that we may someday, somehow find such an example. However, since such has not been seen in thousands of years in numerous examples which have been looked at, it is certainly an extremely reasonable statement.
In addition, in my post #549 I give various theoretical explanations why it cannot happen. If you can refute those explanations, based on very well documented and very well accepted scientific facts, then perhaps your statement that abiogenesis is possible could be true. However, I have not seen (and no one seems to be able to state) even a hypothesis as to how abiogenesis is possible given the scientific facts about life of which we are aware at present.
The origin of life on earth, however, is not addressed by the theory of evolution.
Formally that is correct and I do not deny that the theory itself does not address it. My point is that evolution cannot be true if abiogenesis is false. Evolution claims that all species descended from simple one celled creatures without the help of divine intervention in a totally materialistic manner. If life was created by a divine being then there is absolutely no reason to preclude divine intervention in His creation after life arose. In fact, given the unlikelihood and difficulties that need to be assumed to make evolution work, divine intervention is the most likely answer. So yes, a materialistic explanation of life's development does require that abiogenesis be true.
When it comes to brain-dead and untelable ideological doctrines, ou are the unquestioned voice of experience.
Note to Admin Moderator: My use of the phrase, "brain-deal and untenable ideological doctrine," is a direct quote from his own words.
Wonderful! The Institution I work at has access to this work. I look forward to exploring this work in detail. Such a short quote without any context. It should be very enlightening to read, I'm sure.
This appears to be a reasonable answer, and an honest attempt at discussion. That being the case, I'm going to drop the snark.
I disagree with you that evolution depends on abiogenisis. Variation and selection exist and occur in the presence of imperfect replicators. I agree there is no reason to preclude Divine Intervention, but we have no evidence for it, so we must assume it is false, until such time it is demonstrated otherwise. We can only assume Divine Intervention after ALL other possibilities are ruled out. "Either evolution or Divine Intervention" is a false dichotomy.
This example has been done before, but it's easy and recognizable: Darwin's finches have beaks that change size during periods of drought. When rain returns, beak sizes regress to the mean. If, however, a localized area within a portion of the finches' range experience an extended period of climate change, the beak sizes of the affected would be permanent, isolating that small subpopulation from the rest of the species. Variations in the subpop would be more dynamic than in the larger population, and there is a good chance that a few generations would see the subpopulation reproductively isolated from the main population, and would develop and adapt independently from that point forward.
Abiogenisis is not required for the above example. All evolution requires is the initial spark. When your car battery is dead, to use another analogy, get yourself some jumper cables. But once the engine is running, the jumper cables can be removed, and you are free to drive wherever you want. What jump-started life on earth is currently a matter of speculation, be it Divine Intervention, alien seedlings, cosmic organics, naturally reacting hydrocarbons, or some other phenomenon entirely. But AFTER THAT STARTING POINT, when the reaction was in motion, variation and selection took over. They are simple to describe, fully observable, and they are the ONLY forces for which we have evidence.
Well obviously I disagree with the above. Specifically your last point that 'ALL ofther possibilities are ruled out'. Once a Creator has been established, it must always be a consideration. Specifically, let's take the example of a new gene. Even a small one would be almost impossible to arise by chance. So what is more reasonable then, that the Creator designed it or that a chance which is more unlikely than winning the lottery a dozen times in a row made it? Seems to me that creation is a more reasonable answer once the existence of a Creator has been established. That is what intelligent design is about essentially. If one can show that the evolution of something is so unlikely that it is almost impossible, then one must assume design not a stochastic evolutionary process.
Also the stipulation you make for intelligent design is totally unfair. Certainly evolution could not pass such a test and it is doubtful that any scientific theory could pass a test where ALL other possibilities have been ruled out.
Darwin's finches have beaks that change size during periods of drought. When rain returns, beak sizes regress to the mean. If, however, a localized area within a portion of the finches' range experience an extended period of climate change, the beak sizes of the affected would be permanent, isolating that small subpopulation from the rest of the species. Variations in the subpop would be more dynamic than in the larger population, and there is a good chance that a few generations would see the subpopulation reproductively isolated from the main population, and would develop and adapt independently from that point forward.
The above is what I mean about the tautology of evolutionary theory. You are assuming that something will happen according to evolutionary theory and using it as proof of evolution. What has been observed is the regression to mean.
BTW - the finches show quite well a big problem with evolutionary theory. The quick changes due to environment and the 'return to mean' show that organisms adapt without mutation.
A creator has not been established. No one has provided any evidence of such. You have assumed a creator. All your subsequent conclusions derive from this. I have not assumed such. I refer you to the null hypothesis discussion above.
If one can show that the evolution of something is so unlikely that it is almost impossible, then one must assume design not a stochastic evolutionary process.
Again, false dichotomy. If one can show evolution is impossibly unlikely -- an event that has not occured save for misapplied mathematics-- then the only thing one can assume is that evolution via the methods described does not adequately explain diversity.
You are assuming that something will happen according to evolutionary theory and using it as proof of evolution. What has been observed is the regression to mean.
Seasonal variation in beak size HAS been observed. There is no reason to hypothesize a regression to the mean in the event of permanent climate change.
The quick changes due to environment and the 'return to mean' show that organisms adapt without mutation.
Exactly what do you think evolutionary theory states, anyway? Variation is the key. The source of variation is irrelevant.
We were speaking of abiogenesis. You said that evolution does not require abiogenesis to be true. I said it does because once there is a Creator, it must always be a consideration in evolution. So yes, the lack of any possibility of life having arisen without a Creator is a big problem for evolution.
If one can show that the evolution of something is so unlikely that it is almost impossible, then one must assume design not a stochastic evolutionary process. -me-
Again, false dichotomy. If one can show evolution is impossibly unlikely -- an event that has not occured save for misapplied mathematics-- then the only thing one can assume is that evolution via the methods described does not adequately explain diversity.
Hard to say if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me on the above, sounds like blather to me. You have not shown any mis-applied mathematics in my statements or in the problems that evolution faces.
You are assuming that something will happen according to evolutionary theory and using it as proof of evolution. What has been observed is the regression to mean. -me-
Seasonal variation in beak size HAS been observed. There is no reason to hypothesize a regression to the mean in the event of permanent climate change.
Which does not prove that the beaks will keep growing or getting smaller regardless which environment ends up permanent. Your assumption that it will continue progressing is not substantiated by anything at all. The fact that when climate changes back, the species beak size changes back shows quite well that the changes are not due to mutations - which are the only things which could cause permanent progressive change in the species. So the beaks of the finches show quite well that adaptation does not mean evolution - as I have been saying.
The quick changes due to environment and the 'return to mean' show that organisms adapt without mutation. -me-
Exactly what do you think evolutionary theory states, anyway? Variation is the key. The source of variation is irrelevant.
Of course the source of the variation matters. For man to have descended from bacteria lots of genetic change, lots of additional genes, DNA, functions had to have arisen. Evolutionists say that these mutations are the way species adapt to the environment. The only 'how' for these changes occurring posited by evolutionists is mutations. The finches show quite well that there is adaptation without mutation.
Lots of gibberish which does not refute the point that the beaks of the finches grow smaller and larger and back again with the change in precipitation. They go back and forth, they do not go 'out of control' either way. The importance of the point is that we have adaptation without mutation, as I stated before.
I would also like to point out that you have yet to provide evidence for a creator or designer.
But for the time being, I note that "gibberish" and "blather," among others, are starting to creep back into your vocabulary. Oh well. Thanks for the cordial discussion while it lasted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.