Biologists Replicate Key Evolutionary Step in Life on Earth
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wait one pea-pickin' second! You're not even listening to yourself.
Didn't you just say it was an EXPERIMENT?
Wilson.
Of course I said it was an experiment. That's what science is all about, experimental verification.
What was verified was that, given a specific initial environment and a specific type of environmental pressure that affected reproduction(in this experiment's case it was the ability of float), and a large number of successive generations(time, essentially) organisms evolved a trait that was not present in the original organisms.
It is true we don't know that the experiment replicated actual conditions on earth, or that the specific environmental pressure involved in the experiment ever mattered in our actual history. That isn't the point of the experiment. What the experiment showed is that evolution of new traits in response to environmental pressure is possible. Not just new traits, but in this case the jump from single cell to multicellular life has been shown to be possible.
It doesn't prove that it did happen, but when given the choice between an impossible explanation, or one that is improbably, but proven to be possible, the second choice makes much more sense.
Pre - Ps. NoCapo put it excellently. In response to what appeared to be Wilson's semantic dickering in hopes to extract a cheap point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elamigo
It is interesting that something like this is replicated by intelligent minds, not by pure chance, is a great thing but if someone sayst that thousands of years ago another intelligent mind did the same in nature, makes no sense. It is not even considered as a a possibility or another theory to put in the discussion table.
Arbitrarily it is accepted by pure chance in nature but not in a laboratory. take care.
I can't speak for all atheists much less scientists, but I don't think that is the position. The fact is that we can't disprove an Intelligent Mind as being behind the process of evolution, far less the way Life got started.
What we CAN do is to try to find evidence or at least clues as to the process. So far what we have found doesn't actually show any sign of an Intelligent Mind.
Therefore, the best explanation for evolution is a natural process. As far as abiogenesis goes, the experiments and clues and hypotheses do little more than put a natural hypothesis on the table as a valid alternative to the theory that an Intelligent Mind mustha dunnit.
While some atheists (Including Dawkins, of course) do seem to say 'Ha! This is how it happened! no God involved.' the actual situation is that they say (and I say) there is no valid evidential reason to propose ID as a mechanism for the development of life and Abiogenesis, which is still very hypothetical, has at least feasibility where before it didn't, really.
And..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamplight
Shouldn't this be in the Science forum? Oh wait, it would just wind up here anyway.
Strictly speaking the evolution debate should be in the science section as it is not a religion matter, but Bible- literalist Creationism and its disguise of glasses, white coat and clipboard as 'ID' have made a religious issue of it, and I suppose the evolutionary challenge to Goddunit inevitably made it so.
Oh, how very silly!
Incidents do not happen. They are caused!
The ONLY thing they proved is that it could not happen on its own.
The ingredients were selected and combined by intelligent minds.
The question therefore remains:
WHO did it?
Wilson.
RESPONSE:
>>Incidents do not happen. They are caused!<<
Yes. By random chance.
(Of course, it could happen on it's own. It did in the case of our planet).
>>The ingredients were selected and combined by intelligent minds.<<
The ingredients were already there. How much intelligence does it take to operate a centrifuge (or to allow the cells themselves to settle by gravity over a longer period of time)?
I am not arguing that God does not exist. In fact, I am fascinated how God allowed things to make themselves!
Why do you guys say that "No God" required? Where in the Bible of Christianity does it say evolution did not happen. There's no problem with evolution and Genesis. What Christians have a problem with is naturalism, the unguided mutation of organisms.
I assume you actually meant to say natural selection. Natural selection is not random. But most mutations are. They can happen via a stray cosmic ray, or by chemicals in the environment, even spontaneously (as has been demonstrated many times). But the selective pressure of natural selection choosing which of these mutations are passed on to offspring is not random.
I assume you actually meant to say natural selection. Natural selection is not random. But most mutations are. They can happen via a stray cosmic ray, or by chemicals in the environment, even spontaneously (as has been demonstrated many times). But the selective pressure of natural selection choosing which of these mutations are passed on to offspring is not random.
I'm thinking that Nick was merely observing how Creationists conflate the entirety of Evolution - a mechanism of natural selection and mutations for the diversity of live, with Naturalism - everything from the BB with no God at all. And then they compound it by mistakenly believing 'Evolution' is inherently tied to atheism, where in their minds evolution includes all natural sciences.
I'm thinking that Nick was merely observing how Creationists conflate the entirety of Evolution - a mechanism of natural selection and mutations for the diversity of live, with Naturalism - everything from the BB with no God at all. And then they compound it by mistakenly believing 'Evolution' is inherently tied to atheism, where in their minds evolution includes all natural sciences.
I can't speak for all atheists much less scientists, but I don't think that is the position. The fact is that we can't disprove an Intelligent Mind as being behind the process of evolution, far less the way Life got started.
What we CAN do is to try to find evidence or at least clues as to the process. So far what we have found doesn't actually show any sign of an Intelligent Mind.
Therefore, the best explanation for evolution is a natural process. As far as abiogenesis goes, the experiments and clues and hypotheses do little more than put a natural hypothesis on the table as a valid alternative to the theory that an Intelligent Mind mustha dunnit.
While some atheists (Including Dawkins, of course) do seem to say 'Ha! This is how it happened! no God involved.' the actual situation is that they say (and I say) there is no valid evidential reason to propose ID as a mechanism for the development of life and Abiogenesis, which is still very hypothetical, has at least feasibility where before it didn't, really.
Thanks for the reply. So much, much more complicated mechanical systems in nature is logical to accept as accidents. However, to even imply that a computer system that is nowhere close to a simply cell is OK to say somone had to built it.
What are the odds that the simplest cell happened by accident?
Actually, I making a claim that there is a god that designe all that. I am saying that the possibility that an intelligent mind at least seems to be behind such complicated systems. I do not think it is so far fetched. Just today I was brousing a book entitled "What Darwin Got Wrong". The title of the book is misleading because the writers are atheist themselves. They actually point to so many areas in biology and other subjects where they believe scientists rely a lot on to support evolution. They are open minded enough to question and see the flaws in evolution. They do attempt to explain those flaws with a bunch of possibilities like throwing darts on a board. To me it is something that give me enough times I will be ablet to hit the bulls eye ten times straight, just give me time.
They cover a few scientist points. However, I have notices in a few books, like this one, that use language with wording like "OK, so if Darwin got wrong, what do you guys think is the mechanism of evolution? Short answer: we don't know what the mechanism of evolution is. As far as we can make out, nobody knows exactly how phenomes evolved. We think that quite possibly, they evolved in lots of different ways; perhaps there are many distinct causal routes...."
Boldface are mine.
After that the books goes on in terms like maybes, perhaps, probably, etc.
In your reply you sound less open minded than others when commenting on the subject. At least you are more in line with comments with leading atheists and scientists I have read that admit there are many inconsistencies in evolution and how life started. Some even admit are honest enough to make a comment like this evolutionist, Professor G. A. Kerkut of the University of Southampton (London).
He wrote:
It is therefore a matter of faith on the part of the biologist that biogenesis [evolution] did occur and he can choose whatever method of biogenesis happens to suit him personally; the evidence for what did happen is not available. Implications of Evolution
These types of honest comments have been around for a long time and even Dawkin had a moment in an interview he made a comment I am sure he regrets making similar comments. He did look rattled once he made that comment.
This type of honesty is somwhat common. I respect their honesty whereas some in these forums make a "Evolution is a FACT" type of statement. To me there is a lot more weigth in the comments of Noble Price reciptients that many in these forums. Take care.
It is therefore a matter of faith on the part of the biologist that biogenesis [evolution] did occur and he can choose whatever method of biogenesis happens to suit him personally; the evidence for what did happen is not available.
That's an odd quote, evolution doesn't seem to appear in the original.
Of course that quotes from recognized experts on the can be used. What is wrong with that?
You know what that reminds me of? It is no different when religioius people differ on interpretations of the Bible, the same with scientists on interpreting.
It seems you as the followers in religions do the same, pick those that are in line with your views as the correct ones AND make statement of fact based on interpretations.
From what I reason, you cannot test the past. There are no witnesses to testify how the past happen. We can test and reason with the best logic possible how things may have happened and come up with some possible conclusions. You may conclude there was no intelligent cause and I otherwise.
I am not making a claim a god exists for your information. I believe that the claim of an intelligent cause is possible in nature based on what I think is also valid logic and reason.
Personnally? I think there is a god but I am not going to make it a statement of fact.
I simply believe that it is reasonable that a god exists. Not that it matters to me in the sense that I pray to him or her at night or ask him or her for help when I am sick.
I just reiterate that to me it is reasonable that it is possible to look into the possiblity that an intelligent cause could possibly be a factor in how the universe became. Take care.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
