Evolution Pros and Cons

[Moontanman]

Galapagos, you asked:

''Questor, answer this question: Do you or do you not accept both the overwhelming evidence and scientific consensus on the fact of evolution and common ancestry of the biota on Earth?

Please do not avoid this question again.'

I do indeed accept that the great majority of scientists have reached a consensus

on this issue. I do agree there is abundant evidence for variation in species due to mutations or environmental conditions. I do not neccessarily agree that all life started with one single cell organism, since there could have been numbers of cells formed in the same environment for the same reasons. The multiplicity of species would lead me to believe there was more than one original progenitor.

 

It's not accurate to say all life on the earth started with one single cell and progressed from that point, At the time that cells were forming there were many different type of cells some were better adapted than other to using different energy sources and had many different patterns of survival. These organisms were not a single species nor were they really separate species the idea of species didn't really apply, These first very primitive organisms swapped genes regularly, the species barrier didn't really exist. Even today with what we call "species" bacteria still gene swap and often single celled creatures that seem to be totally unrelated can and do swap genes. To say at some point there was a single cell that out competed all the others and swept the planet to be the winner is simply not true. It's a simplified way to talk about a very complex process, the last common ancestor was really many different life forms that had gene swapped until they were all related.

 

It also troubles me that the fossil inventory does not show a smooth continuum of evolution and some species seemed to appear relatively quickly from questionable

ancestors. ( eg.human beings) I realize that millions of years have passed, but these same years passed for chimps and after millions of years they are still chimps. If you read my first post of this thread, I did not deny the tenets of evolution, but I have some questions about the package.

Now, you answer this question. Comparing life to an orchestra, with the instruments being the genes and the players being the biochemical enzymes and the music being the product; who is the conductor, and who wrote the music?

 

Again you imply a disparity where non really exists, 10 million years ago there were no chimps, 5 million years ago when the hominid line and the ape line diverged there were no chimps or humans. Both developed slowly over time, chimps are chimps because the evolved into chimps not because they haven't evolved. Chimps might stay in their current form for 100 million more years or they might change into several different species and the chimps might still be around or they might become extinct. Evolution don't alwasy happen just because time has passed, some animals change very little if any once a form has been reached. Do not think that just because humans and chimps descended from a common ancestor that humans have evolved but chimps have not. what you are alluding to is a common question often asked by creationists, if humans evolved from chimps (or apes) why are there still apes around. there is not evolutionary ladder, chimps didn't directly evolve into anything but chimps. There are two species of chimp. There could have been several more at one time or maybe not and chimps have recently evolved into two species of chimp. At one time there were several species of hominids alive on the earth. Now there is just one but that is mostly because we pretty much eliminated the competition either by simply pushing them into extinction by grabbing all the good habitats or by killing them out right. (some think that some hominids may have been absorbed into our genome by hybridization) When some one asks if apes were our ancestors why are there still apes. It's like saying if Europeans were your ancestors why are their still Europeans.

[questor]

This thread shows that none of us are experts on this subject. I do not think the evidence of evolution is overwhelming as yet.When it is, there will be no questions from me. Galapagos, you have called me a liar but not presented the lie that I told. Would you like to apologize or produce the truth? You do not need to post any more links to Wikipedia since they do not answer my questions. You have finally gotten down to the level of enzymatic reactions but these are molecules which need something to motivate their activity. Every link you have posted gives reactions which must have some causal factor. Do you know what that factor is?

None of the biochemical molecules have a brain, so what causes their activity?

[Galapagos]

This thread shows that none of us are experts on this subject. I do not think the evidence of evolution is overwhelming as yet. When it is, there will be no questions from me.

Then your beliefs are at odds with the scientific data and the consensus of the biological science community. You have simply not acknowledged the majority of the evidence(or presented a rival hypothesis, for that matter).

 

This is also an argument from incredulity on your part; a fallacy and failure to reason properly.

When you are ready, feel free to acknowledge the genetic evidence for common descent:

Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent

 

Galapagos, you have called me a liar but not presented the lie that I told. Would you like to apologize or produce the truth? You do not need to post any more links to Wikipedia since they do not answer my questions.

You are dishonest in that you claim to have valid objections to evolution, but you have simply been playing a "just asking questions" game, which was really an expression of your own god of the gaps theology. You even admitted to holding intelligent design beliefs(here) before you finally slipped a bit of anthropomorphizing in one of your strings of rhetorical questions, revealing your own irrational beliefs and the real underlying cause of your skepticism(see here).

You have also repeatedly posted objections to, and baseless assertions about evolution as claims made by others, then not stuck around to address the evidence. You have repeatedly responded with more questions, trying to find a gap of knowledge in which you can place your deity of choice. Needless to say, this has been incredibly dishonest.

 

 

You have finally gotten down to the level of enzymatic reactions but these are molecules which need something to motivate their activity. Every link you have posted gives reactions which must have some causal factor. Do you know what that factor is?

None of the biochemical molecules have a brain, so what causes their activity?

The laws of physics and chemistry govern the behavior of biological molecules such as monomers, polymers etc. Again, you are implying that some personality or "intelligence" must be behind all of this, which is both incorrect and dishonest.

These fallacies were all covered in the previous links, which like most of the other information contradicting your belief in this thread, you have conveniently ignored.

 

Look at where the argument has lead; every objection has had a scientific response given, and your last hold out--- the last gap you could fill with your supernatural deity-- is that the behavior of molecules is governed by physical laws.

Here is your answer: evolution does not explain the laws of physics or chemistry. The scientific field of physics explains the laws of physics, and how physical bodies, large and small behave and interact.

And I know you said not to link to wiki anymore(would it kill you to spend an afternoon on wiki, instead of browsing conspiracy theory websites that simply validate your religious presumptions?) but here is the page on biophysics:

Biophysics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Moontanman]

One of the saddest things about our information based civilization is that no matter how strange your beliefs or what you need to be true to support your beliefs you can always find someone who shares them and is will to pat your back and tell you what you want to believe. This flaw in our info society can be seen on the nightly news where if you disagree with what one news anchor says you can always change the channel to another whose slant is more to your liking. If you need to believe that alien hybrids are running the United Nations you can find a web site to confirm your fears, if you believe that that there are UFOs filling the sky's you can find a site that agrees. If you need to pick apart a scientific theory with out any real evidence you can always find someone who to fill that need. Creationists need to feel like god is in control and that the natural world proves this. they are wrong, they have been wrong since the Earth was shown to be spherical instead of flat and that Earth orbits around the sun. If you need to believe the Earth is 6000 years old you can find a dim wit to confirm those beliefs. conversely if you are strong enough to want the Truth unvarnished by belief you can find it as well. If you want to believe the Creator has his hand in every cell division that occurs on the Earth you are welcome to that belief. Just remember that belief has never and will never change reality. if you want to believe in god please do so but when you try to allow that belief to dictate what is true and what is false independent of reality then you are doing your self , and your god a disservice, hopefully he will forgive your insult.

[Essay]

None of the biochemical molecules have a brain, so what causes their activity?

THERMODYNAMICS!

 

or....

As Galapagos said:

"The laws of physics and chemistry govern the behavior of biological molecules such as monomers, polymers etc."

 

...and as I pointed out earlier, thermodynamics is the framework relating physics to chemistry,

...much as evolution is the framework which relates chemistry to biology.

 

~ :)

[Moontanman]

You have finally gotten down to the level of enzymatic reactions but these are molecules which need something to motivate their activity. Every link you have posted gives reactions which must have some causal factor. Do you know what that factor is?

None of the biochemical molecules have a brain, so what causes their activity?

 

I admit Questor we have been kind of rude, we have bombarded you with information right and left but we haven't given you a chance to tell what your views are, what do you think the motivates this activity, what is the casual factor? Do you have a hypothesis?

[questor]

Moon, yes, some have been rude, but that shows a lack of understanding and knowledge. I have explained my views before, but here I go again. I do not believe in Gods. I do not believe in church dogma. I do believe that the answers to life, evolution, thought and reason lie somewhere below the molecular level and can be explained by understanding the force or impetus that causes carbon compounds to act as they do. Galapagos does not understand this question and he thinks his numerous links have answered it. He wants to throw names and insults around instead of confront the fact that we do not know. I have read his links and the questions remain unanswered. I am not religious, but I do think the universe has intelligent design. If not, how could there be order, orbiting, gravity, physical forces, evolution, and the universe itself? There should have been chaos if there was a big bang and we would not exist. This indicates to me that some type of planning has occurred. I do not know how to explain it.

I believe in cause and effect. everything has a cause. Once you determine the cause, you may be able to create the effect. Once we understand molecular or particulate biochemistry, we may be able to create life itself. Although we have made self replicating compounds, we have not created life.

If you take a soup of elements neccesary to make life and hit them with electricity, you may create replicating cells, but what else is needed to create life? read the

Miller/Urey Experiment

''By the 1950s, scientists were in hot pursuit of the origin of life. Around the world, the scientific community was examining what kind of environment would be needed to allow life to begin. In 1953, Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey, working at the University of Chicago, conducted an experiment which would change the approach of scientific investigation into the origin of life.

Miller took molecules which were believed to represent the major components of the early Earth's atmosphere and put them into a closed system.

These discoveries created a stir within the science community. Scientists became very optimistic that the questions about the origin of life would be solved within a few decades. This has not been the case, however. Instead, the investigation into life's origins seems only to have just begun.[<quote]

 

Has this specific question been answered? No. So, actually we must understand the nature of life and at what particulate level it resides in order to answer all the questions of evolution. We have not answered the question of what bottom line motivating force dictates the activity of the chemistry of carbon compounds.

We don't know, and the scientists don't know regardless of their consensus.

[questor]

Essay, you want to discuss thermodynamics and you quoted Galapagos:

''As Galapagos said:

"The laws of physics and chemistry govern the behavior of biological molecules such as monomers, polymers etc."

This is an incorrect statement. A law DESCRIBES behavior, it does not initiate it.

What is it that you want to say about the role of thermodynamics in evolution?

[Moontanman]

Moon, yes, some have been rude, but that shows a lack of understanding and knowledge. I have explained my views before, but here I go again. I do not believe in Gods. I do not believe in church dogma. I do believe that the answers to life, evolution, thought and reason lie somewhere below the molecular level and can be explained by understanding the force or impetus that causes carbon compounds to act as they do. Galapagos does not understand this question and he thinks his numerous links have answered it. He wants to throw names and insults around instead of confront the fact that we do not know. I have read his links and the questions remain unanswered. I am not religious, but I do think the universe has intelligent design. If not, how could there be order, orbiting, gravity, physical forces, evolution, and the universe itself? There should have been chaos if there was a big bang and we would not exist. This indicates to me that some type of planning has occurred. I do not know how to explain it.

I believe in cause and effect. everything has a cause. Once you determine the cause, you may be able to create the effect. Once we understand molecular or particulate biochemistry, we may be able to create life itself. Although we have made self replicating compounds, we have not created life.

If you take a soup of elements neccesary to make life and hit them with electricity, you may create replicating cells, but what else is needed to create life? read the

Miller/Urey Experiment

''By the 1950s, scientists were in hot pursuit of the origin of life. Around the world, the scientific community was examining what kind of environment would be needed to allow life to begin. In 1953, Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey, working at the University of Chicago, conducted an experiment which would change the approach of scientific investigation into the origin of life.

Miller took molecules which were believed to represent the major components of the early Earth's atmosphere and put them into a closed system.

These discoveries created a stir within the science community. Scientists became very optimistic that the questions about the origin of life would be solved within a few decades. This has not been the case, however. Instead, the investigation into life's origins seems only to have just begun.[<quote]

 

Has this specific question been answered? No. So, actually we must understand the nature of life and at what particulate level it resides in order to answer all the questions of evolution. We have not answered the question of what bottom line motivating force dictates the activity of the chemistry of carbon compounds.

We don't know, and the scientists don't know regardless of their consensus.

Questor, I honestly do not understand your need to see a motivating force behind chemical reactions. When fluorine encounters hydrogen does it need a motivating force to react? I think not, they react because of the attraction between the atoms and their electron shells. In other words they react because they can. When fluorine encounters neon they do not react because they cannot, not because some outside intelligence won't let them. Organic molecules are the same way, they react because they can they react in the ways they can, not in ways they cannot. Abiogenesis and evolution as well work because the atoms involved can react the ways they do. Reactions that cannot take place do not take place. As the chemical systems become more complex they regulate the reactions but they never cause a reaction that cannot happen. I see no need for an outside motivational force. If we were seeing chemical reactions taking place that could not do so I would concede you have a point but this never happens.

[questor]

Moon, you have to think deeper. Chemical reactions do occur when certain substances contact each other. It's a matter of electron transfer and equlibrium according to individual valences of the combinants. In inorganic chemistry the reaction is spontaneous and occurs immediately upon contact. In organic compounds, the reaction may need a catalyst and/or heat. In living tissue the reactions for genetic replication are timed and seem planned. This is why they say genes contain information. They may occur at a certain time(baldness, puberty, genetic diseases), and under certain conditions. They are not spontaneous and occur with reason. Genetic activity is directed and time sensitive as if someone is controlling the process. It is not random or chaotic. Do a little homework on genetic chemistry and come to your own conclusions. I have never claimed that God has had a part in this and I have never claimed there is a God, but there is a reason.

I do not believe that anyone can answer these biochemistry questions at this time according to what I have read. If an expert can do so, I will abide by the truth.

[Moontanman]

Moon, you have to think deeper. Chemical reactions do occur when certain substances contact each other. It's a matter of electron transfer and equlibrium according to individual valences of the combinants. In inorganic chemistry the reaction is spontaneous and occurs immediately upon contact. In organic compounds, the reaction may need a catalyst and/or heat. In living tissue the reactions for genetic replication are timed and seem planned. This is why they say genes contain information. They may occur at a certain time(baldness, puberty, genetic diseases), and under certain conditions. They are not spontaneous and occur with reason. Genetic activity is directed and time sensitive as if someone is controlling the process. It is not random or chaotic. Do a little homework on genetic chemistry and come to your own conclusions. I have never claimed that God has had a part in this and I have never claimed there is a God, but there is a reason.

I do not believe that anyone can answer these biochemistry questions at this time according to what I have read. If an expert can do so, I will abide by the truth.

 

I can think quite deeply thank you and I am quite well read, I do not agree with you. If indeed every time an organism was born it had to start from scratch you would almost certainly be correct but all the processes you talk about have been built on less complex processes for literally billions of years. Very little is absolutely new when it comes to life. Almost everything is recycled, what controls a process in organism now was almost certainly used to control something else millions of generations ago. Life uses things over and over to control various aspects of the biochemical process that is life. None of the processes you mention stand alone either now or in the past. All are supported and controlled by other processes. All of these processes can be traced back to simpler and less complex reactions but the line of decent is clear. Simple and complex, theses two concepts build on each other to produce what you call intelligent control. The reason these things happen is that if they didn't the genes would not be able to reproduce, this is why these processes happen, the genes are part of a positive feed back mechanism that produces the illusion of intelligent control.

[Pyrotex]

This thread shows that none of us are experts on this subject. I do not think the evidence of evolution is overwhelming as yet.When it is, there will be no questions from me. ...None of the biochemical molecules have a brain, so what causes their activity?

Wrong again, Darth Questor.

There are several of us here who are experts, to the extent that we are more knowledgeable about evolution, biochemistry and genetics than 99% of the general population. You are not numbered in that select few.

 

The fact that you don't find the evidence overwhelming is not only irrelevant---it is meaningless. You are a super-troll; you are not driven by or even influenced by "evidence". You have your dogmatic devotion to your dogmatic point-of-view, and nothing will change that. We have your past behavior here at Hypography as sufficient evidence to convince us of this: "...and ye shall know them by their fruits."

 

It follows, therefore, that your promise that "there will be no questions from me" is equally vacuous. You will NEVER relent to "evidence"---you will only mock it.

 

Your final question concerning the "brain" behind chemical reactions is your most prominent "fruit" here. If you had ANY idea how much it reveals about your stiff-necked ignorance and your arrogant lack of integrity, you would not have said it. But of course, you did say it, and it reveals your hand to one and all.

 

Pyrotex

Slayer of Bad Memes,

And the "Sith Lords" who spread them :)

[questor]

Pyro, your attacks are becoming more vicious and against the supposed aims and rules of the forum. If you are the expert you claim to be, why not explain the points I have raised instead of demeaning me for raising them? I can't see where your comments do anything to further the knowledge of anyone, they coarsen the discourse. You seem to think I am the only person around that has questions about

the explanations about evolution.

If you want to have disagreements with me personally, be man enough to do it on private mail.

[Moontanman]

You seem to think I am the only person around that has questions about

the explanations about evolution.

.

 

Questor, the number of people with questions doesn't make the information questionable. So far you are the one making strange claims about intelligent casual factors. I would like to see some evidence for such a causal factor that isn't just disbelief that anything can occur with out it.

[questor]

Moon, from now on when you attribute a statement to me, please furnish the quote in context so I can determine what you are getting at.

''So far you are the one making strange claims about intelligent casual factors.''

[Galapagos]

Questor, the fact that you can't come up with a better explanation for mundane physical and chemical interactions than supernatural agency is silly. It is also no more of an objection to evolution than it is to me mixing my coffee in the morning.

This thread has turned into theology IMO. If you have any valid objections to evolution specifically, feel free to post them here.

If you want to continue discussing your own god of the gaps theology, perhaps now is the time to take it to the theology forum.

 

Here is a good read about evolution, agency detection, and religion for those interested:

Gene Expression: The gods of the cognitive scientists

[Moontanman]

from Questor, Now, you answer this question. Comparing life to an orchestra, with the instruments being the genes and the players being the biochemical enzymes and the music being the product; who is the conductor, and who wrote the music?

 

from questor, Every link you have posted gives reactions which must have some causal factor. Do you know what that factor is?

None of the biochemical molecules have a brain, so what causes their activity?

 

from Questor, I do believe that the answers to life, evolution, thought and reason lie somewhere below the molecular level and can be explained by understanding the force or impetus that causes carbon compounds to act as they do.

 

from Questor, I am not religious, but I do think the universe has intelligent design. If not, how could there be order, orbiting, gravity, physical forces, evolution, and the universe itself? There should have been chaos if there was a big bang and we would not exist. This indicates to me that some type of planning has occurred. I do not know how to explain it.

 

from Questor, I believe in cause and effect. everything has a cause. Once you determine the cause, you may be able to create the effect.

 

from Questor, Every link you have posted gives reactions which must have some causal factor. Do you know what that factor is?

None of the biochemical molecules have a brain, so what causes their activity?

 

from Questor, In organic compounds, the reaction may need a catalyst and/or heat. In living tissue the reactions for genetic replication are timed and seem planned. This is why they say genes contain information. They may occur at a certain time(baldness, puberty, genetic diseases), and under certain conditions. They are not spontaneous and occur with reason. Genetic activity is directed and time sensitive as if someone is controlling the process. It is not random or chaotic.

 

I think your next step is to say, Michael, I am sorry i made such a disingenuous allegation toward you, I have several times alluded to a intelligent design, a causal factor and stated many times that these chemical reactions need a reason or guiding intelligence.