[_ Old Earth _] I Don't Get It...

[Pard]

OK I don't get some stuff about evolution. I'm just interested in seeing what evolution-minded (see that it's like the PC version of evolutionist, because ya'll get all sorts of ticked off with that word...) folks say about these things. Just going to list some questions.

No need for arguments. Imagine it is a philosophy quiz... everything and anything you can write is still the right answer!

What are the odds that a pool of mud will get struck by lightening at the same time that all the compounds of a cell (and for the benefit of the doubt, let's just pretend the lightening already struck perfectly the last few times in order to make some of the more complex inner workings of a cell...) are in order, and thus create a living organism?

What are the odds that some how that first organism not only managed to be created, but was already good to go with it's own replication system?

How does the first organism (once it does the things above, and a LOT of other things) ever evolve? From my understanding, basic organisms just spawn, there is no "mate". The spawns are clones of the original organism. How does that translate into something that managed to be the ubergrandfather of every living thing in the world?

I actually know the answer to the above question, no need to answer it... So let's carry on with that answer. Basically, if I understand correctly, a single celled organism that replicates itself can still "evolve" (though it's hardly in the spirit of that term...) because the replication system isn't perfect and it leaves room for errors that translate (eventually) into new "traits" (just like how viruses can adapt). So what are the odds that two of these clones, at some point down the line, would not only "mess-up" enough to create compatible reproduction systems, but that they would also be within the same general area and that they would ever find one another in that big old mud pool.

Where do plants and (what do you call the living breathing ani-) animals split off? Was it like one child grew roots and the other grew legs? (That last sentence was a joke)

How did life, which was most likely water-based, manage to find its way onto land? Water and land are not only two different ball-parks they are two different games!

How did plant life develop a reproduction system? Are plants old? I mean for the most part they need insects... did plants come later in the game? What came first: the plant or the bee?

Where does a little whimpy single celled organism turn into a multi-celled organism? Where does that scrawny multi-celled organism turn into a creature with multiple organs all of which are assigned a different job and are required to work in unison to provide life? What came first: the brain or the heart?

I'll get some more once these have been answered... Oh and let's avoid big words and things. I wrote my questions in a way that even my monkey ancestors could understand (hahah, see that is a evolutioni-, evolution-minded joke!!!). So let's give answers in an equally understandable format. It's easy to throw a few big words and some concepts only people with PhDs understand, and it is probably tempting to do, since it will more or less quell any dissenting views... It sure keeps me from responding to posts which I otherwise get nothing about, except that they are wrong!

 

[Alabaster]

Exactly, Pard! My question is always regarding the implausible notion that somehow both male and female evolved at the same time, ready to replicate! How did they replicate before this to get to that point?

It simply makes evolution a ridiculous fantasy, IMO. It is only an idea created in man's mind that wants desperately to not believe God. What lengths people go to!

 

[jasoncran]

and when they do that. kindly adress my biggest issue. why culture? and morals? how?

 

[tim-from-pa]

What are the odds that a pool of mud will get struck by lightening at the same time that all the compounds of a cell (and for the benefit of the doubt, let's just pretend the lightening already struck perfectly the last few times in order to make some of the more complex inner workings of a cell...) are in order, and thus create a living organism?

It's funny you asked this, because I was reading an article about this a few months back. To this date, even with the best controlled environment, man could not make a single living cell even if he sparked away like Frankenstein. It's as if there has to be this "added component", a Spirit if you will, to energize inanimate cells.

The evolutionists probably claim we are just not technologically there yet and need to advance, but tell me, how advanced and controlled was the early environment and and random lightening bolt? Does this whole idea of trying to make life in such a way remind one of the ancient idea of spontaneous generation? No, I guess they laughed at the theory, but today hold a similar concept of abiogenesis instead. I guess you can call a lion a lamb but it's a lion nonetheless.

 

[jasoncran]

so that we dont sound like fools,pard. we seem to have the theory of evolution in question and the the theory of abiogenesis as well? is this correct. the toe doesnt start from non-life to life. the theory of abiogenesis does.

 

[Jakeness]

Okay, I posted a response to the OP. Hopefully it is mod approved.

Exactly, Pard! My question is always regarding the implausible notion that somehow both male and female evolved at the same time, ready to replicate!

We honestly do not know at this time. I am under the impression it has something to do with parasites.

How did they replicate before this to get to that point?

I REALLY hope you know the answer to that question. I learned it in 5th grade...

It simply makes evolution a ridiculous fantasy, IMO. It is only an idea created in man's mind that wants desperately to not believe God. What lengths people go to!

...are you a "Poe?"

 

[lordkalvan]

OK I don't get some stuff about evolution. I'm just interested in seeing what evolution-minded (see that it's like the PC version of evolutionist, because ya'll get all sorts of ticked off with that word...) folks say about these things. Just going to list some questions.

No need for arguments. Imagine it is a philosophy quiz... everything and anything you can write is still the right answer!

What are the odds that a pool of mud will get struck by lightening at the same time that all the compounds of a cell (and for the benefit of the doubt, let's just pretend the lightening already struck perfectly the last few times in order to make some of the more complex inner workings of a cell...) are in order, and thus create a living organism?

You are asking when and how the first replicator came into existence. The short answer is, no one knows - yet. But abiogenesis research suggests a number of avenues that provide plausible naturalistic scenarios in which this could occur. Amino acids - the precursors of life - can form entirely naturalistically. Miller's 1953 experiment, to which I assume you are referring, applied a spark discharge to a mix of gases that the early atmosphere of Earth was thought to be formed of: amino acids formed as a result of this discharge. Amino acids are also found in some meteorites (most famously, the 1969 Murcheson meteorite). However, abiogenesis has moved o a great deal in the last half-century and researchers are exploring the possibilities of energy-driven networks as the starting point from which life originated. Others, however, believe that the RNA-first model offers a more plausible explanation, encouraged by recent discoveries concerning the ease with which ribose can form, a process once believed to be nigh on impossible to form by prebiotic synthesis.

What are the odds that some how that first organism not only managed to be created, but was already good to go with it's own replication system?

Think of it as the development of a network - with multistep chemical pathways and branch reactions - rather than a single spontaneous generation.

How does the first organism (once it does the things above, and a LOT of other things) ever evolve? From my understanding, basic organisms just spawn, there is no "mate". The spawns are clones of the original organism. How does that translate into something that managed to be the ubergrandfather of every living thing in the world?

I actually know the answer to the above question, no need to answer it... So let's carry on with that answer. Basically, if I understand correctly, a single celled organism that replicates itself can still "evolve" (though it's hardly in the spirit of that term...) because the replication system isn't perfect and it leaves room for errors that translate (eventually) into new "traits" (just like how viruses can adapt).

A reasonable enough summary of a very complex process.

So what are the odds that two of these clones, at some point down the line, would not only "mess-up" enough to create compatible reproduction systems, but that they would also be within the same general area and that they would ever find one another in that big old mud pool.

If we return to my network 'model' (it needs a great deal more detail than I sketched cursorily above, hence the quotation marks), it is the 'population' within the network that evolves, rather than isolated individuals. Theories on the origins of sexual reproduction have filled several books. One idea suggests that sexual reproduction aids in the war against parasites. Generally speaking, asexual reproduction is regarded as a likely route to extinction, an observation perhaps exemplified by the near-ubiquity of sexual reproduction on Earth.

Where do plants and (what do you call the living breathing ani-) animals split off? Was it like one child grew roots and the other grew legs? (That last sentence was a joke)

At the microscopic level we are concerned with here, the distinction between animal and plant-life becomes almost one of labelling alone, which is why all large complex life-forms (animals, plants, fungi) are classified as eukaryotes.

How did life, which was most likely water-based, manage to find its way onto land? Water and land are not only two different ball-parks they are two different games!

Evolutionary theory suggests that if an advantage can be gained from exploiting a vacant ecological niche, traits that allow that niche to be exploited will provide an advantage. Mudskippers (clearly a fish), spend quite a lot of time out of the water on land.

How did plant life develop a reproduction system? Are plants old? I mean for the most part they need insects... did plants come later in the game? What came first: the plant or the bee?

A repfroduction system was already present in the early ancestors of plant-life, algae. Flowering plants appear later in the fossil record than non-flowering plants, and as bees evolved from wasps (they are a specialized form of wasp), it appears obvious that plants evolved first.

Where does a little whimpy single celled organism turn into a multi-celled organism? Where does that scrawny multi-celled organism turn into a creature with multiple organs all of which are assigned a different job and are required to work in unison to provide life? What came first: the brain or the heart?

Your question can be answered simply by the basic evolutionary alogorithm: modify, if successful repeat, otherwise discard. As far as the brain is concerned, this is simply an extension of and development of part of the nervous system. Early brains were little more than collections of ganglia, which hardly count as brains at all. Jellyfish and starfish don't have brains at all, while sponges are quite without any nervous system, but then none of these animals has a heart either.

I'll get some more once these have been answered... Oh and let's avoid big words and things. I wrote my questions in a way that even my monkey ancestors could understand (hahah, see that is a evolutioni-, evolution-minded joke!!!). So let's give answers in an equally understandable format. It's easy to throw a few big words and some concepts only people with PhDs understand, and it is probably tempting to do, since it will more or less quell any dissenting views... It sure keeps me from responding to posts which I otherwise get nothing about, except that they are wrong!

I've tried, but you have raised a lot of points that have consumed millions of hours of research and resulted in enough books (most of which I would struggle to follow) to fill a library all on their own.

 

[lordkalvan]

Exactly, Pard! My question is always regarding the implausible notion that somehow both male and female evolved at the same time, ready to replicate! How did they replicate before this to get to that point?

Diploid species have a reproductive advantage over haploid species because deleterious mutations are less likely to become fixed in the population. The differing sexual characteristics of the relatively primitive organisms that evolved this characteristic would be considerably less marked than they are in the more complex organisms we think of when we talk about sexual reproduction. The actual origins of this process remain at the moment, at best, uncertain, but we can probably be sure that it was not just two individuals that developed this feature, but more likely a reproductively isolated population (one of the 'engines' of speciation).

It simply makes evolution a ridiculous fantasy, IMO. It is only an idea created in man's mind that wants desperately to not believe God. What lengths people go to![/B]

Insofar as evolution is supported by a wide range of evidence, it is certainly not a fantasy. You may disagree with the theory, but in order to offer a robust alternative explanation, you must better account for all of the evidence that supports the theory in as consilient and parsimonious way as does evolutionary theory.

 

[lordkalvan]

It's funny you asked this, because I was reading an article about this a few months back. To this date, even with the best controlled environment, man could not make a single living cell even if he sparked away like Frankenstein. It's as if there has to be this "added component", a Spirit if you will, to energize inanimate cells.

What do you mean by 'Spirit'? Are you proposing an animistic view of life? You are right about the difficulties inherent in creating life from scratch.

The evolutionists probably claim we are just not technologically there yet and need to advance, but tell me, how advanced and controlled was the early environment and and random lightening bolt?

Given that we are not certain of the exact composition of the chemical 'soup' and the conditions that led to replicating molecules forming, the only thing we can be certain of is that conditions on Earth in the distant past were such as to lead to the forming of this 'soup' on a large scale and that, amongst the countless billions of molecules present in this soup, the chances of mutations occurring on a monumental scale are high.

Does this whole idea of trying to make life in such a way remind one of the ancient idea of spontaneous generation? No, I guess they laughed at the theory, but today hold a similar concept of abiogenesis instead. I guess you can call a lion a lamb but it's a lion nonetheless.

Well, not exactly. The idea of spontaneous generation supposed that all sorts of life could come from inanimate matter and was proposed in its classical form by Aristotle (4th Century BC), but was preceded by earlier forms of the hypothesis by philosphers such as Xenophanes (6th Century BC) and Empedocles (5th century BC). One can see overtones of this idea in the Genesis account in which the archetypal human male is formed from inanimate clay.

 

[lordkalvan]

so that we dont sound like fools,pard. we seem to have the theory of evolution in question and the the theory of abiogenesis as well? is this correct. the toe doesnt start from non-life to life. the theory of abiogenesis does.

This is quite an important point, Jason. The original protocell could have been created by God, from which supernatural event all life as we know it evolved entirely naturalistically. This supernatural creation is not something I hold to myself, but it does not preclude the soundness of evolutionary theory as an explanation for the development of life's complex variety thereafter.

 

[Alabaster]

Okay, I posted a response to the OP. Hopefully it is mod approved.


We honestly do not know at this time. I am under the impression it has something to do with parasites.

What? Parasites were more highly functioning to have a role in human 'evolution'?

Sounds like a mastermind at work!

No. It is implausible to believe that two genders evolved without sexual or asexual reproduction to the point where they were exactly at the same point at the same time to reproduce together. One would die off.

Man was created at prime level of maturity, and so was woman...and so was the entire animal kingdom before them.

I love how my pastor suggests the ridiculousness of the theory of evolution: imagine someone throwing a huge cardboard box of popsicle sticks in the air. What are the odds that they will all fall to the ground as a fully integrated model of a house with rooms and furniture, too?

Impossible. So is evolution. There is a huge, Mind at work---God's---and it is obvious to anyone who thinks.

 

[lordkalvan]

What? Parasites were more highly functioning to have a role in human 'evolution'?

Sounds like a mastermind at work!

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Improved resistance to parasites is one of the ideas put forward to explain the development of replication by combining genetic material from individuals of the same species. Evolution does not occur in isolation, but is a response to a variety of environmental pressures.

No. It is implausible to believe that two genders evolved without sexual or asexual reproduction to the point where they were exactly at the same point at the same time to reproduce together. One would die off.

Why is it implausible? Again, populations evolve and not individuals and early sexual differentiation would not have been anything like occurs amongst complex organisms today. All that would be necessary to kick-start the process would be for individual organisms to combine genetic material and to gain some sort of advantage over organisms that didn't.

Man was created at prime level of maturity, and so was woman...and so was the entire animal kingdom before them.

The evidence in the actuality of creation (whether natural or supernatural) indicates otherwise. Why would you suppose that the morality tales of a pre-scientific culture attempting to provide an explanation of where it came from override that evidence?

I love how my pastor suggests the ridiculousness of the theory of evolution: imagine someone throwing a huge cardboard box of popsicle sticks in the air. What are the odds that they will all fall to the ground as a fully integrated model of a house with rooms and furniture, too?

Your pastor has a poor grasp of evolutionary theory, then, and his analogy is quite misleading. An algorithm exists which influences the 'popsicle sticks' to form particular 'patterns' which are then replicated with slight differences. After a great deal of time some of these changes may result in 'furniture'. The algorithm is - modify, repeat if successful, otherwise discard.

Impossible. So is evolution. There is a huge, Mind at work---God's---and it is obvious to anyone who thinks.

Consider the possibility that God might have been entirely smart enough to create the first protocell and leave his creation to do the rest of the work through the systems he has installed in it. He would seem to have been quite smart enough to create a Universe where stars and planets can continue to form entirely naturalistically, after all.

 

[Jakeness]

My post was not approved.

What? Parasites were more highly functioning to have a role in human 'evolution'?

Sounds like a mastermind at work!

I already admitted that scientists are not sure what caused the two sexes. I hope you aren't under the impression that scientists know everything.

Man was created at prime level of maturity, and so was woman...and so was the entire animal kingdom before them.

Evidence?

I love how my pastor suggests the ridiculousness of the theory of evolution: imagine someone throwing a huge cardboard box of popsicle sticks in the air. What are the odds that they will all fall to the ground as a fully integrated model of a house with rooms and furniture, too?

Shows how little your pastor actually knows about evolution, because that analogy makes no sense. If you applied that logic to abiogenesis then it might have some significance, but none with evolution.

But then that analogy is still fallacious, as there are complex things that form without a creator (see: snowflakes). The argument is also self refuting, because the logic shows that God is in need of a creator.

EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy#Mandelbrot_Analogy

 

[Alabaster]

My post was not approved.


I already admitted that scientists are not sure what caused the two sexes. I hope you aren't under the impression that scientists know everything.

They definitely don't! But many gullible and empty-headed people think they do, because they have no faith. It fills the hole, basically.

Evidence?

God says so.

Shows how little your pastor actually knows about evolution, because that analogy makes no sense. If you applied that logic to abiogenesis then it might have some significance, but none with evolution.

You're darned tootin' it makes no sense! That's why evolution is silly. LOL! Actually, my pastor is brilliant.

But then that analogy is still fallacious, as there are complex things that form without a creator (see: snowflakes). The argument is also self refuting, because the logic shows that God is in need of a creator.

No. All things were created by God. He is the great Chemist and Physicist, too, setting into motion all laws of the Universe.

God doesn't need a Creator. He has always been. Can we fathom that? No, but then we are only dust, and I will know the reality of that truth one day when I meet Him face-to-face.

 

[lordkalvan]

They definitely don't! But many gullible and empty-headed people think they do, because they have no faith. It fills the hole, basically.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise: what 'gullible and empty-headed people' think about scientists has little or no bearing on whether they have faith or not. I also doubt that anyone thinks scientists know everything about everything.

God says so.

Your understanding that what was written in religious books by pre-scientific people 2000 or more years ago happens to be the literal word of God is not evidential. All the evidence that we do have (i.e. evidence that we can observe, measure, analyse and draw conclusions) from indicates that your assertions concerning the development of life on this planet are wrong.

You're darned tootin' it makes no sense!

Are you still talking about evolution? Why does it make no sense?

That's why evolution is silly. LOL!

Do you think meteorology, astronomy and physics are silly as well?

Actually, my pastor is brilliant.

He may well be brilliant in his particular field of expertise, but that clearly does not extend to his knowledge of evolutionary theory.

No. All things were created by God. He is the great Chemist and Physicist, too, setting into motion all laws of the Universe.

And that 'setting into motion' could have been, for example, the instant of the Big Bang, from which everything thereafter followed according to those laws (including evolution).

God doesn't need a Creator. He has always been. Can we fathom that? No, but then we are only dust, and I will know the reality of that truth one day when I meet Him face-to-face.

This just seems like a convenient construction to handwave away the obvious difficulty surrounding any question directed towards the origins of God. The God of the Old Testament seems to be a capricious, very human sort of God, struggling against other gods whose existence does not seem to be questioned. Most scholars agree that monotheism came late into Israelite religion.

 

[jasoncran]

thiestic evolution is rather a nebulours position as that has to imply evolution is directed and ns has no intellegence behind it.

logarithim functions aren't random, if they are then that means something had to have intellegence to set that in motion and control it by DESIGN. that would also mean that it has controls and limits. thus a form of CREATIONISM. it also contradicts what ns.is blind.

 

[lordkalvan]

thiestic evolution is rather a nebulours position as that has to imply evolution is directed and ns has no intellegence behind it.

Not that I agree that what I about to suggest corresponds with the actual situation, but isn't it possible to argue that it is simply the basic structure of the 'laws' that have to be influenced by a directing intelligence and then evolution (or whatever other naturalistic process we are looking at) proceeds naturalistically thereafter, i.e natural selection operates just as evolutionary theory proposes?

logarithim functions aren't random, if they are then that means something had to have intellegence to set that in motion and control it by DESIGN. that would also mean that it has controls and limits. thus a form of CREATIONISM. it also contradicts what ns.is blind.

Not random ≠ designed by a guiding intelligence. Many things in nature that show patterns or features that would seem to suggest design are demonstrably not the result of a guiding intelligence at work: snowflakes and differential sorting on beaches, for example.

 

[Deavonreye]

Your understanding that what was written in religious books by pre-scientific people 2000 or more years ago happens to be the literal word of God is not evidential. All the evidence that we do have (i.e. evidence that we can observe, measure, analyse and draw conclusions) from indicates that your assertions concerning the development of life on this planet are wrong.

This just seems like a convenient construction to handwave away the obvious difficulty surrounding any question directed towards the origins of God. The God of the Old Testament seems to be a capricious, very human sort of God, struggling against other gods whose existence does not seem to be questioned. Most scholars agree that monotheism came late into Israelite religion.

And this is the crux of the problem with christianity as a whole. Because the pastor says the BIBLE says that GOD says so, . . . . then it is infallible. But as you illuded to, lordkalvin, it has been agreed that the Hebrew religion was polytheistic [a shoot off of ancient Babylonian beliefs] until around 600 bce. And when answers are not available to state their claims, then "easy answers" are proposed, . . . "God said so". . . . "God had no beginning", etc. THIS is the reason why many can't take this all seriously because it relies upon the word of ancient men and their claims.

I have no problems with there being "the supernatural" or deities. I've not experienced them myself but if you have a belief, no matter how sure you are, . . . if actual evidence doesn't back up your claim, or if your opinion shows a lack of understanding, then it should come as no surprise when the scientific community dismisses your input in the topic.

 

[jasoncran]

Not that I agree that what I about to suggest corresponds with the actual situation, but isn't it possible to argue that it is simply the basic structure of the 'laws' that have to be influenced by a directing intelligence and then evolution (or whatever other naturalistic process we are looking at) proceeds naturalistically thereafter, i.e natural selection operates just as evolutionary theory proposes?

Not random ≠ designed by a guiding intelligence. Many things in nature that show patterns or features that would seem to suggest design are demonstrably not the result of a guiding intelligence at work: snowflakes and differential sorting on beaches, for example.

when you can say that logarithim functions such as these have no rules and somehow can to be without any rules then you have an argument lin, log and also exponotial functions. these have rules. something had to come up with.

do you type by chance? you direct the words. you also just argued that God could have used evolution, and now deny that he did.

i said that if something that rules comes from nothing. how is that possible? the chicken and the egg. chance sets up the logarthimic function , if that is the case then ultimately we are here by chance.

i think if we are honest life is way too complicated to be by chance. we manipulate dna and have been for a while. could it be that a higher entity that doesnt want us to know it, has been doing just that? they designed these things.

and dont give me that something designs is inefficient cases in nature. men do that all the time. we make things to fail. we do all the time. work on cars long enough and you will see this.

 

[abrown9]

I love how my pastor suggests the ridiculousness of the theory of evolution: imagine someone throwing a huge cardboard box of popsicle sticks in the air. What are the odds that they will all fall to the ground as a fully integrated model of a house with rooms and furniture, too?

One misconception that a lot of people have with abiogenesis is the need for a specific sequence of nucleotides in order for life to proceed. Since the first life forms undoubtedly did not translate their own proteins, the order of nucleotides is irrelevant.

Again, however, abiogenesis is NOT a requirement of the TOE.

By the way, the parasite hypothesis refers to the Red Queen Hypothesis. Basically, the idea is sexual reproduction allows for greater variation and thus greater possibility for improved adaptations in the evolutionary arms race (Red Queen's Hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)