Two roads to the same spot (a challenge to evolution)

This thread is closed for posting.

page 1 of 2 1 2 Next » 31 total items

boojitsu

boojitsu

Ninja In Training

Cancel

ok, so say we give scientists a way to prove and the means to prove how the world and humanity came to be.

Now.... they create a 100% fool proof way to do it. some lighnting here, some amino acid stuff here, some molecules of blah blah BAM humanity is started....(obviously not like that, but if you're reading this I hope you can fill in the blanks on your own)

ok, so say the scientists say that...


how do you get to your house ?
how do you get to school ?

aren't there multiple roads to the same spot? aren't there many ways to get there. Making a left first, or a right, or a freeway, or a back road....etc.

So even if evolution has a 100% success rate of creating life out of a few non-living things, this is by no means 100% the only way to do it.

If I drop a rock off a buliding and it hits a car.... scientists can make a theory that's 100% provable and possible about how the rock rolled down a hill and ended up being launched and hitting the car.... that still doesn't change the fact that I dropped the rock, and not some other way.

so even if evolution makes sense, has a lot of proof, or this or that.... this will NEVER rule out one way or another. We weren't there, we didn't do it, and what we believe doesn't make it so. It's all about faith, regardless of what you believe.

-Boojitsu21 :pacman:

Cancel

Yes it is considerably possible to have more than one path to a result. There is one thing though, if you consider the other path the time between the start and the end the events are different rather than the one selected before. If assumably we can pick a path so to speak, technically we would end up the same place (assuming the path's result are the same) but we would have different memories and you wouldn't know whom you effected because of this.

Let's just put an idea or example up just to show. This would be to the evolution stuff just to note. If there was technically another path towards the civilaztion we lived in, if evolution was to start in another method or at another path, it would partially destroy the fact there are dinosaur fossils and heck it may even screw up our current natural gas usage. It would change history because the other path's, so to speak, history and events are different from our current stand point. The result is the same, but it doesn't mean what around you is or isn't.

?(/??)?
?? ???
????????
????????

  • Feb 27, 2007
Cancel

Man...this topic has been created and discussed ad nauseam. Don't you guys ever get bored of creating the same topic (in one form or another) over and over again?

This thing is starting to get redundant when you can just go to other similar threads and read through the discussions without having to fish for one again. People are just going to post the same content anyway.

  • Feb 27, 2007

ProgramZERO

ProgramZERO

The Lost Generation

Cancel

Alot of evidence supporting evolution. No evidence exists for other suggested theories. Process of elimination.

Sleeping peacefully on the edges of No Man's Land... Not all good is rewarded, not all evil is punished.

boojitsu

boojitsu

Ninja In Training

Cancel

process of elimination can lead to some "plausible" ideas... that just aren't true. It's not necessarily what sounds good..... or even that there is "evidence" cause evidence can put an innocent man behind bars. That's all I'm saying.

-Boojitsu21 :pacman:

Cancel

Some of you don't realise this, but God is an organisation, not a person. You're all so silly for not figuring that out.

And as for your theory about the rock thing, scientists could not do that. You should watch a show called Numb3rs. Things like how far the rock rolled/bounced after hitting the car and analysing the dent that it would make in the car would support evidence that it was dropped. I'm not sure what size rock you are talking about, but I don't think a small one would pick up enough speed to fly through the air if rolling down a hill and if it was a massive boulder then you should just examine the glass and how far it shattered

With honey and clovers

  • Feb 28, 2007

boojitsu

boojitsu

Ninja In Training

Cancel

it was an example not a full-proof idea. Just imagine this..

God moves a mountain. The moving of that mountain takes some tectonic plates along with it and causes a whole shift.

You know 100% that this is what happened. God told you, you saw it, you know it.

Now, scientists tell you "no, God doesn't exist, so we'll figure out the scientific way"

they test, check, and say "hey these plates are what moved the mountain... duh"

now.... just because, in this scenario, scientifcally, it is "obvious" what happened, that doesn't mean it is truthfully what happened.

-Boojitsu21 :pacman:

Cancel

If by God told us you mean that some hairy middle aged guy wrote down in a book that God told him, then that may be correct. But, I don't really recall any mountain moving in the bible. Do you really think God would bother moving some plates anyway, don't you think by now she just got bored of this world, set it on auto-pilot, and went off to build another world that can function better.
And if you think about it, do you really think that God cares what people think? If you created a world would you want everybody to constantly worship you without giving the any reason to. Yeah, so what, she created the world several billion years ago, he should get over himself. If he did it just to be worshipped then God is a bastard and doesn't even deserve it.
I'm not really sure where I'm going with this, maybe just to say to not get all touchy over some guy who has completely ignored you since you were born. I'm not saying that I don't believe in God, because I do, I'm just saying that she is a jerk.

With honey and clovers

  • Feb 28, 2007

boojitsu

boojitsu

Ninja In Training

Cancel

not sure how that related....

that didn't really relate at all... but thanks for sharing?

not saying "now we all have to believe God created the world cause Boojitsu said so"

I'm saying people should think about things a little more than they do... that's about it.

-Boojitsu21 :pacman:

Cancel

Quote: And as for your theory about the rock thing, scientists could not do that. You should watch a show called Numb3rs. Things like how far the rock rolled/bounced after hitting the car and analysing the dent that it would make in the car would support evidence that it was dropped. I'm not sure what size rock you are talking about, but I don't think a small one would pick up enough speed to fly through the air if rolling down a hill and if it was a massive boulder then you should just examine the glass and how far it shattered


Like I said before, there are more than one method to actually doing one thing but the history behind it changes. You can actually take a small pebble and make a dent as big as a boulder can. Problem with that, it's hard to obtain and we haven't even reached that technology. Another example would be like using a metal hammer to smash a diamond instead of using something harder and more durable.

Quote: If by God told us you mean that some hairy middle aged guy wrote down in a book that God told him, then that may be correct. But, I don't really recall any mountain moving in the bible. Do you really think God would bother moving some plates anyway, don't you think by now she just got bored of this world, set it on auto-pilot, and went off to build another world that can function better.
And if you think about it, do you really think that God cares what people think? If you created a world would you want everybody to constantly worship you without giving the any reason to. Yeah, so what, she created the world several billion years ago, he should get over himself. If he did it just to be worshipped then God is a bastard and doesn't even deserve it.
I'm not really sure where I'm going with this, maybe just to say to not get all touchy over some guy who has completely ignored you since you were born. I'm not saying that I don't believe in God, because I do, I'm just saying that she is a jerk.


Uhh... yeah... this is more of controversy and because of unproven fact that god is dangling around not cause someone said so.

?(/??)?
?? ???
????????
????????

  • Feb 28, 2007
Cancel

Quote: If by God told us you mean that some hairy middle aged guy wrote down in a book that God told him, then that may be correct. But, I don't really recall any mountain moving in the bible. Do you really think God would bother moving some plates anyway, don't you think by now she just got bored of this world, set it on auto-pilot, and went off to build another world that can function better.
And if you think about it, do you really think that God cares what people think? If you created a world would you want everybody to constantly worship you without giving the any reason to. Yeah, so what, she created the world several billion years ago, he should get over himself. If he did it just to be worshipped then God is a bastard and doesn't even deserve it.
I'm not really sure where I'm going with this, maybe just to say to not get all touchy over some guy who has completely ignored you since you were born. I'm not saying that I don't believe in God, because I do, I'm just saying that she is a jerk.

I don't understand how this topic returned to how God does nothing for you(?) And i ask you...Did you do everything that God said and you're still disappointed? But this is another topic. Let's leave it here.

What i would like to say is that: The big bang explosion is not contradicting with God's creation of the world. Simply beacuse God could use the bing bang to begin everything. And in the Bible doesn't say any details about how God created the world. It just says that he said to be and it became. It doesn't say if the result was a big bang or something else.

I have to agree with DarkroseofHell, however, that two roads may lead to the same result but they are totally different. So they cannot co exist because then they would be the same.... :\

  • Feb 28, 2007
Cancel

Again with this? You guys must have veeery boring lives. :\

As me, since I'm writing this. :D

Religion and Science don't contradict each other. Unless you want it to do so.

There aren't two paths. There was only one: life appeared on Earth and evolved. If you are to believe it, that's how God does things. Very slowly.

Bye.

  • Feb 28, 2007

Mnemeth

Mnemeth

Rider of the Currents

Cancel

TO GET BACK onto subject. Your theory while interesting can also be used to prove up is down and right is left and be used against you as well.
Speaking in possibilities and probabilities requires mathematics of some form (most people would be really amazed at how many forms mathematics can take). You have to take all the evidence (known or theorized) and arrange it in a logical progression and in doing so you will be leaving certain items called outliers (items that do not initially fit into the flow) out. To get to a solid theory you must then introduce the outliers and see how they perturb the system you have created. From this point on you are at the mercy of chaos theory since it is not really likely you will be able to predict every possible outcome as there may be an infinite number or outcomes.
Don't try mix this with faith as pure faith is based purely on ones personal beliefs regardless of the evidence for or against those beliefs.

Do not interfere in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

  • Feb 28, 2007

boojitsu

boojitsu

Ninja In Training

Cancel

faith is faith regardless of where you're at.

we can't be there, we can't see how the earth was made...

so even if the theory includes or doesn't include outliers, you're still putting faith in that theory

And sometimes, it's the outliers that are most truthful.... they just happen to be outliers :)
-Boojitsu21 :pacman:

ProgramZERO

ProgramZERO

The Lost Generation

Cancel

Quote by boojitsuprocess of elimination can lead to some "plausible" ideas... that just aren't true. It's not necessarily what sounds good..... or even that there is "evidence" cause evidence can put an innocent man behind bars. That's all I'm saying.

-Boojitsu21 :pacman:

Well, the evidence for evolution is VERY convincing. It's all about plausibility and interpretation. As for innocent people being sent to prison, it usually has to do with how evidence is interpreted and the jurors in the trial.

Sleeping peacefully on the edges of No Man's Land... Not all good is rewarded, not all evil is punished.

Cancel

Quote by boojitsuaren't there multiple roads to the same spot? aren't there many ways to get there. Making a left first, or a right, or a freeway, or a back road....etc.

While you are right that there are many paths to the same end consider this. Suppose you met me while waiting in front of my doorstop. Which path is more likely for me to have taken? I walked straight home from school or did I jumped onto a UFO flew to Pluto (no longer a planet it seems), had amazing adventures there, then went back in time to go around the corner whereupon I met you waiting at my doorstop.

While the two events are POSSIBLE it's pretty clear that I walked home. How did you come to this conclusion? Did you have faith that I did so? Obviously not. You probably used logic that I walked home rather than went to Pluto and back.

It's not faith to suggest that I took the more logical path. You seem to define faith as merely the belief that something is true. I believe that the universe exists therefore I have faith that it does. I believe that the sun will shine tomorrow so I have faith that it does. I don't think this is an accurate description of faith. I think faith is more like the belief in something despite lack of any evidence whatsoever as to its veracity. Or perhaps even with evidence against the claim.

On a side note this does not prove the existence of any particular God. For all we know the creator god was Bob from the 10th dimension. This doesn't show that the creator god was God, Thor, or Bob. So even if there was a god how do you know you're believing in the right god. Perhaps the real god is going to send you to his or her form of hell for believing as you do.

Even if we assume evolution to be wrong, again this does not prove the existence of god. For instance we can show that pink unicorns are not green. Therefore god exists. Clearly this proves nothing. So even if I give you the ability to prove evolution wrong this does not prove that any gods exist.

Finally I'd like to comment on something. The Theory of Evolution makes no claims as to the origins of life or the earth. It is a scientific theory about how life changes over time and how it adapts to environmental pressures. When you talk about creating life out of non-life that has nothing to do with evolution just so you know as least not in the sense of evolution as biologists see it.

That's all I have to say for now.

  • Mar 05, 2007
Cancel

You say some nice things.

Quote by PleaseRecycle

Finally I'd like to comment on something. The Theory of Evolution makes no claims as to the origins of life or the earth. It is a scientific theory about how life changes over time and how it adapts to environmental pressures. When you talk about creating life out of non-life that has nothing to do with evolution just so you know as least not in the sense of evolution as biologists see it.

That's all I have to say for now.

But i think you are wrong at this one. Because, you see, if you believe in the theory of evolution as a theory about how life changes over time why does it not apply to the first man and the birth of life and only to the men and beings after him? if you take a certain piece of material as granted then you can say that this piece evolved as time passed from one stage to the other. Does this exceed the definition you gave? :\

I believe Darwin said that men come from monkeys. In the same way, couldn't it explain how monkeys come from something else and then that something else from something else and it goes on? That's the actual problem of evolution. It doesn't stop at the examination of the adaptation of living beings to their environment. Because if it would, it would have been called Adaptation, not evolution. (a personal opinion ^_^')

And i would also like to ask about the biologists that see it the way you said. Do you believe every biologist sees it just as an adaptation? Because some experiments some biologists make show otherwise, which means there is always another side to the coin. :\

  • Mar 05, 2007
Cancel

Quote by Greomer
But i think you are wrong at this one. Because, you see, if you believe in the theory of evolution as a theory about how life changes over time why does it not apply to the first man and the birth of life and only to the men and beings after him? if you take a certain piece of material as granted then you can say that this piece evolved as time passed from one stage to the other. Does this exceed the definition you gave? :\

I believe Darwin said that men come from monkeys. In the same way, couldn't it explain how monkeys come from something else and then that something else from something else and it goes on? That's the actual problem of evolution. It doesn't stop at the examination of the adaptation of living beings to their environment. Because if it would, it would have been called Adaptation, not evolution. (a personal opinion ^_^')

And i would also like to ask about the biologists that see it the way you said. Do you believe every biologist sees it just as an adaptation? Because some experiments some biologists make show otherwise, which means there is always another side to the coin. :\

Thanks. Evolution does not apply to the origins of Life simply because nowhere inside the theory does it try to explain how life first began. Let me give the simpler wikipedia description of evolution.

"In biology, evolution is the change in a population's inherited characteristics, or traits, from generation to generation. The information used by the organism to produce these traits is stored on a molecule known as DNA, and is divided up into smaller units known as genes to make it easier to measure and talk about changes in it. During reproduction, these genes are copied and passed on to the offspring. Random changes in these genes can produce new or altered traits, resulting in differences between organisms. Evolution occurs when these different traits become more common or rarer within a population."

Since evolutionary theory does not deal with the origins of life it would be nonsense to talk about how evolution explains that life began from non-life. So in a way yes it does exceed the strict biological definition of evolution.

Darwin postulates that humans had previously evolved from an ape-like creature. Yes evolution explains that apes probably evolved from monkeys, monkeys from other animals etc. However in the way biologists tend to use the word evolution that's where it stops. Like I said evolution explains change not origin.

Evolution itself comes from a word that means "unfolding" or "opening" so I suspect that it was selected because of the relation it has to growth, change, and progress because that is what it deals with. True it has to do with adaptation but it also has to do with a species improving over time to better survive. The other definitions of evolution fit well with this "any process of formation or growth; development" or "a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions." I think the word evolution fits quite well with the basic tenets of the Theory of Evolution. To use the word adaptation does not fit quite as well.

Evolution deals with how traits are transfered, how variation occurs within a species, the mechanisms by which a species evolves, and of course natural selection. It pretty much stops there. In the usual sense of the Theory the origin of life do not appear in it. That falls under the purview of abiogenesis which is a completely different subject matter.

Yes I believe that any biologist worth their salt sees evolution only as a process by which species change over time. It would be a misuse of the word and the theory to say that evolution explains how life first began. That my friends goes under abiogenesis which tries to explain how life began from non-life. Let me give you the wikipedia synopsis of it.

"Abiogenesis is, in its most general sense, the generation of life from non-living matter. Today the term is primarily used to refer to hypotheses about the chemical origin of life, such as from a primordial sea or in the vicinity of hydrothermal vents, and most probably through a number of intermediate steps, such as non-living but self-replicating molecules (biopoiesis). Abiogenesis remains a hypothesis, meaning it is the working assumption for scientists researching how life began. If it were proven false, then another line of thought would be used to modify or replace abiogenesis as a hypothesis. If test results provide sufficient support for acceptance, then that is the point at which it would become a theory."

I believe this is a bit unnecessary but I'll say it anyways. The Theory of Evolution has an amazingly strong body of evidence to support it and even after a number of years heatedly trying to disprove it no one has been able to do so. Not because biologists are dogmatic in their beliefs (otherwise no one would have started believing in evolution to begin with), but rather because the evidence supporting it is much too strong to ignore.

The creator of this thread uses a definition of evolution that is at the very least a misinterpretation of what it really means. This is a common misconception that lots of people use. I do not believe even Darwin himself mentioned anything about primordial soup or anything in "The Origin of the Species." Although I could be wrong since I haven't read it in a while. However, Darwin does suggest in 1871 that it could be possible that life began in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, [so] that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes." But this is almost a decade after he first published his ideas on life.

boojitsu uses the Miller-Urey Experiment and relates it to evolution. This cannot be done because they are part of two different subjects within science. It would be like me comparing Judaism with Christianity and saying that they are the same religion. To be sure they are two very similar religions with Christianity arising from Judaism, but in the end they are two completely different religions that believe in different things.

That's all I have to say for now hope that helps.

  • Mar 06, 2007
Cancel

Quote: "In biology, evolution is the change in a population's inherited characteristics, or traits, from generation to generation. The information used by the organism to produce these traits is stored on a molecule known as DNA, and is divided up into smaller units known as genes to make it easier to measure and talk about changes in it. During reproduction, these genes are copied and passed on to the offspring. Random changes in these genes can produce new or altered traits, resulting in differences between organisms. Evolution occurs when these different traits become more common or rarer within a population."


Just to note, there are already faults to this quote and since it is wikipedia, the more reason why there may be. Whoever wrote this clearly wasn't thinking. DNA is a strand of ribonucleic acids. It is not a molecule... Whoever wrote this didn't even make sure of he/she wrote.

Also what Greomer means is that if evolution was an actual thing, as in a proven theory, then it is possible to trace backwards from what we start. Also because you started with a bad quote you did mess up in your arguement and it seems too long.

Quote: Evolution deals with how traits are transfered, how variation occurs within a species, the mechanisms by which a species evolves, and of course natural selection. It pretty much stops there. In the usual sense of the Theory the origin of life do not appear in it. That falls under the purview of abiogenesis which is a completely different subject matter.

Yes I believe that any biologist worth their salt sees evolution only as a process by which species change over time. It would be a misuse of the word and the theory to say that evolution explains how life first began. That my friends goes under abiogenesis which tries to explain how life began from non-life. Let me give you the wikipedia synopsis of it.


Evolution doesn't just deal with how traits are transfered, it deals with the change and improvement of an organism (doesn't need to be an improvement). It deals how we came to be and we weren't always as homo sapians, there are what I guess you can say ancestors or previous species of ours before we evolved to this.

Quote: The creator of this thread uses a definition of evolution that is at the very least a misinterpretation of what it really means. This is a common misconception that lots of people use. I do not believe even Darwin himself mentioned anything about primordial soup or anything in "The Origin of the Species." Although I could be wrong since I haven't read it in a while. However, Darwin does suggest in 1871 that it could be possible that life began in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, [so] that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes." But this is almost a decade after he first published his ideas on life.


He used evolution as an example a possibility that there was another method to our current era. This shouldn't even be an arguement on evolutions.

?(/??)?
?? ???
????????
????????

  • Mar 06, 2007
Cancel

Quote by DarkRoseofHellJust to note, there are already faults to this quote and since it is wikipedia, the more reason why there may be. Whoever wrote this clearly wasn't thinking. DNA is a strand of ribonucleic acids. It is not a molecule... Whoever wrote this didn't even make sure of he/she wrote.

1. A molecule is a group of atoms held together by chemical bonds.
2. DNA is a polymer comprised of nucleotides, phosphates, and deoxyribose (which is a sugar).
3. These parts of DNA are further comprised of various ATOMS of elements such as oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, hydrogen, and other various elements. These atoms are chemically bonded to each other.
4. I repeat again "A molecule is a group of atoms held together by chemical bonds. "

Therefore DNA by all accounts IS a molecule. DNA is comprised of trillions upon trillions of atoms chemically bonded together. I hope that this statement you make "DNA is a strand of ribonucleic acids. It is not a molecule... " does not suggest you think that DNA is not made up of atoms bonded to each other.

Quote: Also what Greomer means is that if evolution was an actual thing, as in a proven theory, then it is possible to trace backwards from what we start. Also because you started with a bad quote you did mess up in your arguement and it seems too long.

See above argument to see why my first quote is fine. Yes it is possible to trace life back to the very beginning but despite that evolution cannot be used to explain the origins of life only what happened after. Read my earlier post to know why. Evolution is a proven scientific theory as far as theory goes. It has been tested experimentally for decades and no one has conclusively proven it false. To say that evolution is not usable because it is "just a theory" would be like saying there is no gravity because the theory of gravity is just a theory. Or similar etc.

Quote: Evolution doesn't just deal with how traits are transfered, it deals with the change and improvement of an organism (doesn't need to be an improvement).

Notice how I said "how variation occurs within a species." Sounds a lot like "the change and improvement of an organism" now doesn't it? Also evolution tends to be used on the scale of the species. To say that an individual organism evolves would be a tiny bit incorrect. A population of organisms evolves not a single organism.

Quote: He used evolution as an example a possibility that there was another method to our current era. This shouldn't even be an arguement on evolutions.

I don't seem to understand what you are trying to point out here. Please clarify this if you can for me. I think you are saying that this thread is not a debate on evolution. However, the very title says "challenge to evolution." I can only assume that this is suppose to be a debate on evolution. Or maybe you are saying that the author is using evolution only as an example and wants to discuss other areas of thought. Again the title tells me that I was suppose to discuss evolution. If you wish to discuss other subjects please do so and I will comment as needed.

  • Mar 07, 2007
Cancel

Quote: 1. A molecule is a group of atoms held together by chemical bonds.
2. DNA is a polymer comprised of nucleotides, phosphates, and deoxyribose (which is a sugar).
3. These parts of DNA are further comprised of various ATOMS of elements such as oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, hydrogen, and other various elements. These atoms are chemically bonded to each other.
4. I repeat again "A molecule is a group of atoms held together by chemical bonds. "

Therefore DNA by all accounts IS a molecule. DNA is comprised of trillions upon trillions of atoms chemically bonded together. I hope that this statement you make "DNA is a strand of ribonucleic acids. It is not a molecule... " does not suggest you think that DNA is not made up of atoms bonded to each other.


Wrong again, DNA is made up of compound molecules, DNA itself is not made of molecules if you state that, but if you do state it as then, the organic compounds of something aren't as they seem then.

Quote: See above argument to see why my first quote is fine. Yes it is possible to trace life back to the very beginning but despite that evolution cannot be used to explain the origins of life only what happened after. Read my earlier post to know why. Evolution is a proven scientific theory as far as theory goes. It has been tested experimentally for decades and no one has conclusively proven it false. To say that evolution is not usable because it is "just a theory" would be like saying there is no gravity because the theory of gravity is just a theory. Or similar etc.


There's a difference between a theory and a law, gravity is a law not a theory. A theory is a given set of ideas (or just one) that is backed up by observed information but it can't be fully proven.

Quote: Notice how I said "how variation occurs within a species." Sounds a lot like "the change and improvement of an organism" now doesn't it? Also evolution tends to be used on the scale of the species. To say that an individual organism evolves would be a tiny bit incorrect. A population of organisms evolves not a single organism.


That isn't evolution though, that's adaptation.

Quote: I don't seem to understand what you are trying to point out here. Please clarify this if you can for me. I think you are saying that this thread is not a debate on evolution. However, the very title says "challenge to evolution." I can only assume that this is suppose to be a debate on evolution. Or maybe you are saying that the author is using evolution only as an example and wants to discuss other areas of thought. Again the title tells me that I was suppose to discuss evolution. If you wish to discuss other subjects please do so and I will comment as needed.


It says in paranthesis a challenge to evolution, he's stating that this idea has possibilities to intervene theories of evolution. Read the title, read the first post, now please think again.

?(/??)?
?? ???
????????
????????

  • Mar 07, 2007
Cancel

Quote by DarkRoseofHellWrong again, DNA is made up of compound molecules, DNA itself is not made of molecules if you state that, but if you do state it as then, the organic compounds of something aren't as they seem then.

Is this just a semantics argument here? I'm arguing that since DNA is made of compound molecules chemically bonded together that are further made up of atoms bonded together this makes DNA a very large molecule. Even if DNA is made up of many types of compounds each are bonded to other molecules making one very large molecule.

Quote: There's a difference between a theory and a law, gravity is a law not a theory. A theory is a given set of ideas (or just one) that is backed up by observed information but it can't be fully proven.

Let me give another example then. The Theory of General and Special Relativity. While it is true that you cannot prove a theory (or anything for that matter) completely and perfectly that does not mean you can't use it to explain things. Relativity is a theory that predicts and explains quite well a lot of natural phenomena such as the bending of light and the existence of black holes. A law is not that much different from theory. "A physical law, scientific law, or a law of nature is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior, or simply a mathematical (or logical) definition. Empirical laws are typically conclusions based on repeated scientific experiments over many years, and which have become accepted universally within the scientific community." A law cannot be fully proven either because for all we know the law could be wrong. This has happened before in relation to the Newton's laws of motion which were later corrected by Einstein.


Quote: That isn't evolution though, that's adaptation.

"Biological evolution refers to the cumulative changes that occur in a population over time. These changes are produced at the genetic level as organisms' genes mutate and/or recombine in different ways during reproduction and are passed on to future generations."

That's from PBS. Adaptation is a part of the theory of evolution. It is part of the ideas behind natural selection. So even if I talk about adaptation it is part of the greater theory of evolution.

Quote: It says in paranthesis a challenge to evolution, he's stating that this idea has possibilities to intervene theories of evolution. Read the title, read the first post, now please think again.

I read the title, read the first post, and still have no idea what you're talking about. From what I can see all I get is that the author wants to discuss the possibilities around the origins of life. I'm arguing that evolution should not be used in a manner that tries to explain how life began.

  • Mar 07, 2007

Kyo26

Kyo26

Miuseiki

Cancel

In the beginning, something exploded (we really don't know what, how, or when it came from) and our current universe slowly formed and cooled. The rock surface of earth dissolved to form a chemical soup which somehow formed the first self-replicating cell. This cell somehow adapted itself to its environment, becoming more and more complex with time. Billions of years passed as useful information was added to the chemical blueprint of simple organisms causing the variety of life forms to increase. The end result is the current diversity of life we see all around us. Thus, what we are really being taught is that rocks (or basic elements) somehow turned into people.

Mutations are random mistakes which demonstrably do not add useful information to the DNA molecule. Natural selection can only select that which is already present in an animal's genetic code. And despite enormous efforts in laboratories all over the world, it has never been shown how chemicals could be mixed together and "come alive". Thus, evolution is firmly based on faith in future discoveries...not current observations.

its interesting how evolution makes ppl get off track...i mean liek, if u said we come from apes..thn wher do apes come from? like the 1st paragraph...it makes no sense watsoever...thn it ultimately comes down to how did these things appear?

Signature
	Image

  • Mar 07, 2007

ProgramZERO

ProgramZERO

The Lost Generation

Cancel

Quote by Kyo26And despite enormous efforts in laboratories all over the world, it has never been shown how chemicals could be mixed together and "come alive".

It was called the Miller-Urey experiment and was carried out in 1953. Look it up.

Sleeping peacefully on the edges of No Man's Land... Not all good is rewarded, not all evil is punished.

page 1 of 2 1 2 Next » 31 total items

Back to Religion & Science | Active Threads | Forum Index

Only members can post replies, please register.

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Read more.