Posted on 12/22/2005 7:15:18 AM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo
WHEN Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, he gave a convincing account of how life has evolved over billions of years from simple microbes to the complexity of the Earth's biosphere to the present. But he pointedly left out how life got started.
One might as well speculate about the origin of matter, he quipped. Today scientists have a good idea of how matter originated in the Big Bang, but the origin of life remains shrouded in mystery.
Although Darwin refused to be drawn on how life began, he conjectured in a letter to a friend about "a warm little pond" in which various substances would accumulate.
Driven by the energy of sunlight, these chemicals might become increasingly complex, until a living cell formed spontaneously. Darwin's idle speculation became the basis of the "primordial soup" theory of biogenesis, and was adopted by researchers eager to re-create the crucial steps in the laboratory. But this approach hasn't got very far.
The problem is that even the simplest known organism is incredibly complex. Textbooks vaguely describe the pathway from non-living chemicals to primitive life in terms of some unspecified "molecular self-assembly".
The problem lies with 19th-century thinking, when life was regarded as some sort of magic matter, fostering the belief that it could be cooked up in a test tube if only one knew the recipe.
Today many scientists view the living cell as a type of supercomputer - an information-processing and replicating system of extraordinary fidelity. DNA is a database, and a complex encrypted algorithm converts its instructions into molecular products.
(Excerpt) Read more at smh.com.au ...
There isn't anything wrong with using science to study the wonders of God's creation. We can see how things tick and marvel at the intricate and delicate detail in all things.
The Evolution theory is a faith also. based on a timeline set by scientist, not by God.
Secondly, there isn't any proof of evolution. pertaining to create one species from another. We see adaptation of a species, but evidence of a crossover. Meaning, you can't get a horse from a dog.
I like a good conspiracy theory as the next guy, but this one isn't very good.
If man can be depicted as nothing special, just an accidental assembly of chemicals which evolved over millions of years, it is much easier to denigrate any rights he may claim or any specialness as individuals. Collectivism and herding are then much easier to accomplish.
ROFL! No, sorry. There is a vast body of thought on how rights arise even aside from being handed down by some deity. Even if men's "creator" is nature, they are still "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights", and will fight to preserve them.
Third time I'll ask the question. Please answer it - it's actually very simple.
Is astrology science?
How do you know he is in hell? Darwin rebuked those that made his thoery into a religion. He even recanted his book saying it was all a "what if.." and he repented.
>>>sting. Is that an internet rumor?
No. As the judge cited in his ruling.
ID aspires to “change the ground rules” of science and lead
defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces.
The rigorous attachment to “natural” explanations is an essential attribute to science by definition and by convention. From a practical perspective, attributing unsolved problems about nature to causes and forces that lie outside the natural world is a “science stopper." Once you attribute a cause to an untestable supernatural force, a proposition that cannot be disproven, there is no reason to continue seeking natural explanations as we have our answer.
In any case, your concept of science is completely out of step with the scientific community. I'll stick with them, thank you.
I'm convinced that ID is a stealth plot by communist subversives to undermine American science education so that Cuba and China can establish a global monopoly on the biotechnology industry. I ask you all: Is it just coincidence that the Discovery Instiute is in the Socialist Republic of Seattle, that Philip Johnson lives in the People's Republic of Berkeley, or even that the Thomas Moore Center operates out of the Democratic Republic of Ann Arbor?
NO, astrology is a occultic, Astronomy is a science
The judge merely pushes the question from what is science to what is nature. That only makes it more difficult. I hope he doesn't equate the two.
The point that Behe made is that inferences drawn from the properties and behavior of matter can be legitimate science, even when those inferences may later be proven wrong.
a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one
Scientifically true IS different than "true". 1000 years from now, someone may discover something that proves a current theory is false, but for the next 1000 years, that theory will be scientifically true until proven false. For instance, it was "scientifically true" that maggots spontaneously generated from meat...for a looooong time. That is, until it was proven to be a false notion years later. ID has no and can have no factual scientific backing....without time travel. It's a baseless hypothesis that has not been proven in any manner....so it's not even up to anyone to DISprove it (don't have to prove the negative of something that has not been proven).
When you look at the evidence [for evolution], you are determining that *having been created yesterday* is not the best explanation for that evidence.
Not in the slightest. I'm determining that it's a false hypothesis on the basis of the zero evidence provided that it's a valid hypothesis. As a scientist, I don't need to disprove the yet-to-be-proven hypothesis....you need to PROVE that hypothesis, so that I can poke scientific holes in your data to disprove it.
This is why shifting the burden of proof is a fallacy, because both sides can do it, and it therefore does not advance the discussion or show which claim is true.
There's a difference between the scientific method and logic 101, but since you're claiming logic-knowledge, I will have to point you to the ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIAM fallacy (P is true, because it has not been proven false). Thank you, play again. I don't NEED to prove creation DIDN'T happen yesterday. YOU need to prove that it DID happen yesterday so I can disprove it. The burden of proof was NEVER on me for me to shift it.
However, I CAN scientifically prove that creation didn't happen yesterday because I have FDA regulated, calibrated clocks (with date) and everything that would've been created yesterday was here BEFORE yesterday.
>>>The judge merely pushes the question from what is science to what is nature. That only makes it more difficult. I hope he doesn't equate the two.
Well, if there is a designer, then that designer would be above the laws of nature and be supernatural. Science, by definition, does not deal with the supernatural. That is for the philosophers.
Huh? Valid science entails making reasonable inferences from the evidence at hand. It does not necessitate causing physical proofs to appear. Valid science is speculative. It is hardly unscientific, or unreasonable, to specualte on the basis of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws, that intelligent design might be a better explanation that - what? How do you explain the fact that particle matter organizes and behaves consitently?
I was told certain cells are "simple?" What does that mean from a scientific standpoint? How does one employ the word "simple" without implying an element of design? I merely pointed out that human intelligence, as far as I know, has been deficient in creating and building functioning cells, and even if it could do so easily, it is somewhat preposterous to assert it could be done without intelligence or design.
> What causes a mutation? Is it a flaw, a malfunction, randomness, or what?
In short... yes. Mutation can be caused by radiation bustign up bits of DNA, a simple error during replication (leaving DNA out, replicating a strand over and over, copying incorrectly), a retro virus inserting its DNA into the host cells DNA, etc.
> Is survival of the fittest a key part of ToE?
Obviously. If mutations made no difference, and an improcved animal had no better chances than the original, then evolution would not occur as we've known it.
> If so, what does fittest mean? Does that mean the survivors are the best overall of a particular species or organism, or just the ones that happened to have survived the particular occurring phenomena?
Largely the latter. Let's simplify: let's say humanity was reduced to two small town, one in Iowa and one in Japan. Let's say it was due to a global nuclear/biological war. Both groups have been ravaged by disease and radiation; mutations are popping up everywhere. Over then next ten generations, the town in Iowa becomes populated by genetic supermen... they are immune to disease, they can pick up boulders bare-handed, they are smart as tacks and can eat dirt and breath chlorine if they need to. But the Japanese town has been reduced to sickly, stunted and rather dimwitted troglodytes.
And then the Yellowstone supervolcano explodes in Wyoming, covering the Iowa town with three meters of red-hot ash. All the Iowan supermen die. The Japanese trogs survive by huddling in caves unto the weather clears, and then go on to re-populate the planet.
Well, in this case, the trogs win out on "fittest." "Fittest" is not one-size-fits-all concet, but is defined as those characteristics that will lead the the best chances of reproduction in the existing environment. If the environment changes non-uniformly, then a species that would otherwise be seen as weak and doomed could easily become dominant.
That's where the "random chance" comes into play on a big scale.
> unlike certain fundamentalist atheists who take things, like the inevitability that functional RNA will be creatable in a lab ex nihilo, purely on faith.
The belief that science will continue to progress as it has these last few hundred years is not exactly an unfounded "faith," and nor is it restricted to "fundamentalist atheists."
later read/maybe pingout.
So, if everything was created yesterday, how would your clocks look different?
-A8
>>>That is just nonsense. Einstein was coming up with "thought experiments" all the time.
And you'll see (post #29 E=mc2 passes tough MIT test )that scientists continue to test those thought experiments.
>>>The question is one of logic. Not all "scientific" discovery occurs in the laboratory. The attempt to define "science" in some narrow sphere that permanently eliminates all but the known and understood physical realm limits its usefulness.
This rigorous attachment to “natural” explanations is an essential attribute to science by definition and by convention. From a practical perspective, attributing unsolved problems about nature to causes and forces that lie outside the natural world is a “science stopper." Once you attribute a cause to an untestable supernatural force, a proposition that cannot be disproven, there is no reason to continue seeking natural explanations as we have our answer.
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.