Support NeoGAF

[Socreges]

There is no "blue sky" it's just an illusion that looks blue, silly goose.

Spoiler

Anagram of Christians? haha

Damn delusional Thiscrians!!

 

[Nocebo]

I've mentioned it briefly before but the evolution of the inner ear in mammals is an interesting subject as it shows how body parts can move from having one function in an earlier species to another in their descendants. Certain jaw bones in reptiles gradually changed into the inner ear bones in mammals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammalian_auditory_ossicles

 

[Tntnnbltn]

Why, then, have we labeled a dog as a separate species?

We haven't. Dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) are currently classified as a subspecies of wolves (Canis lupus).

 

[Nafai1123]

As a fellow scientist, I approve of this thread; although, the immediate focus on religion instead of the actual concepts of evolution are kinda annoying.

I personally find fungus fascinating because in many ways they bridge the gap between single and multi-cellular organisms. They also reproduce in more ways than most people even know exist, and could very well be the largest single living structures on the planet. Not to mention they can get you really....really high.

 

[Mgoblue201]

We haven't. Dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) are currently classified as a subspecies of wolves (Canis lupus).

You're right. I screwed up. I should have went with another comparison, like the little brown bat and some of the derivative species which are incredibly similar. I was simply trying to express that we label things different species for far less than gills or flippers.

 

[mrklaw]

Its a lot, but not infinite (and I know you know this, bare with me)...

Dawkins provided an example whereby if you held hands with your mother, and she with hers, and your grandmother with her mother etc etc all the way back with one ancestor per metre, after about 300km you would be looking at an ape that for all intents and purposes resembles any of the other great ape species.

And logically, if that ape held one of her other daughters hands who then held her daughters hand etc etc back down the line of progeny, you would eventually come to a modern chimpanzee. Your distant cousin.

thats a nice visualisation.

I never understood the 'then why we still got monkeys' question. I guess evolution at its simplest is 'the strong survive' - i.e dominant genes/mutations win out. Maybe people assume that means submissive genes die out. But thats not the case

take humans<---apes--->chimps

At some point, there would be mutations from *some* apes that moved us towards being human. use of tools, perhaps slightly more dextrous hands to accommodate that, whatever. So we evolved. That doesn't mean monkeys don't exist - that line can still completely survive in the original environment.


Fish came out of the water and grew legs. Well some stayed there and carried on swimming around just fine.

 

[mrklaw]

BTW, we've had 7 pages and I've not seen anyone tackle this

I don't know about anyone else, but my biggest trouble with understanding evolution was never regarding how one mammal could evolve into another, say. I have no problem believing that a human and a mouse shared a common ancestor: the homologous structures that we share make it pretty easy to visualize how that could be the case. And that's pretty much how it is for me with all reasonably complex animals: fish, birds, reptiles, etc. With the complexity already there (internal organs, body systems, appendages, whatever) evolution has plenty to work with (so to speak), and it just doesn't seem much of a stretch for one species to drift into another. The trouble for me was always in how such complexity came to be in the first place (and I shouldn't say trouble - I accept evolution completely, of course). I just mean that some things are just less obvious or intuitive than others, like: how did multicellular life come to be? How did sexual reproduction start? How did the first internal organs develop? Or the cardiovascular system? Obviously these kinds of questions have been answered by biologists, but most people just aren't informed to that level. And of course, some things like that probably have fairly complex explanations. My main point here is just that, I wonder if people seeking to explain evolution to doubters would be better served focusing on the "early" stages of evolution - ie, painting a sort of timeline of how life made each of its jumps in complexity: from unicellular to multicellular to invertebrates to vertebrates, or whatever it is. That, I think, is the larger disconnect that more intelligent doubters of evolution might be seeing: not between monkey and man, but between amoeba and arthropod. After all, it's the complexity of life around us that is the key reason so many people are unable to accept evolution.

 

[Mario]

BTW, we've had 7 pages and I've not seen anyone tackle this

This video series sheds some light on those sort of questions

"The Origin Series"
http://www.youtube.com/user/cdk007#grid/user/0696457CAFD6D7C9

Including the Origin of Life, The Genetic Code, Sex, Multicellular Life, and Morality

 

[Tntnnbltn]

You're right. I screwed up. I should have went with another comparison, like the little brown bat and some of the derivative species which are incredibly similar. I was simply trying to express that we label things different species for far less than gills or flippers.

Here's an example for you:

• Yellow-bellied Flycatcher, Empidonax flaviventris
• Acadian Flycatcher, Empidonax virescens
• Alder Flycatcher, Empidonax alnorum
• Willow Flycatcher, Empidonax traillii
• White-throated Flycatcher, Empidonax albigularis
• Least Flycatcher, Empidonax minimus
• Hammond's Flycatcher, Empidonax hammondii
• American Gray Flycatcher, Empidonax wrightii
• American Dusky Flycatcher, Empidonax oberholseri
• Pine Flycatcher, Empidonax affinis
• Pacific-slope Flycatcher, Empidonax difficilis
• Cordilleran Flycatcher, Empidonax occidentalis
• Yellowish Flycatcher, Empidonax flavescens
• Buff-breasted Flycatcher, Empidonax fulvifrons
• Black-capped Flycatcher, Empidonax atriceps

Species in the genus Empidonax have virtually identical plumage and morphology -- so much so that professional bird watchers cannot tell them apart based on looks alone.

Least Flycatcher (Empidonax minimus):


Alder Flycatcher (Empidonax alnorum):



They are, however, different species. They have different genetic information, different bird songs, different nesting behaviour, and the different species do not reproduce.


* Note: Just because they all look the same, doesn't mean these birds recently underwent speciation. People who know a lot more about this kind of stuff than I do estimate that the species first diverged around 9 million years before present; there simply hasn't been much selective pressure on morphological characteristics.

 

[Socreges]

BTW, we've had 7 pages and I've not seen anyone tackle this

But each of his questions demands several pages of text to properly answer. As he conceded:

"Obviously these kinds of questions have been answered by biologists, but most people just aren't informed to that level. And of course, some things like that probably have fairly complex explanations."

I think if there is such a thing as an "intelligent doubter" of evolution, they should be bright enough to know where to go if they truly want answers to such questions. Google "how did ___________ evolve" and read the first or second result. Easy.

And I think we've already demonstrated anyhow that doubters of evolution are doubters for a reason. They normally already act as though they are informed and are therefore careful not to make specific charges (e.g. how did sexual reproduction ever evolve!?) because they know there are likely specific answers. Instead they stick to the predictable, vague charges.

 

[Mgoblue201]

They are, however, different species. They have different genetic information, different bird songs, different nesting behaviour, and the different species do not reproduce.

Those are great ones. I was thinking of the little brown bat vs. the Indiana bat myself.

Little brown bat:

Indiana bat:

The only real differences are, according to Wikipedia, the size of the feet, the length of the toe hairs, and the presence of a keel on the ankle of the Indiana bat. I also believe that the Indiana bat has slightly different roosting behaviors throughout the year, since it's very picky about the cave that it hibernates in.

 

[mrklaw]

But each of his questions demands several pages of text to properly answer. As he conceded:

"Obviously these kinds of questions have been answered by biologists, but most people just aren't informed to that level. And of course, some things like that probably have fairly complex explanations."

I think if there is such a thing as an "intelligent doubter" of evolution, they should be bright enough to know where to go if they truly want answers to such questions. Google "how did ___________ evolve" and read the first or second result. Easy.

And I think we've already demonstrated anyhow that doubters of evolution are doubters for a reason. They normally already act as though they are informed and are therefore careful not to make specific charges (e.g. how did sexual reproduction ever evolve!?) because they know there are likely specific answers. Instead they stick to the predictable, vague charges.

I'm not talking about the doubters, I'm talking about some of the bigger physiological developments, how do they evolve if evolution is about small mutations eventually resulting in larger changes?

I know its a complex question (thanks for the video links BTW), but this thread has been able to explain quite well other complex questions

 

[Mumei]

Where's your evidence it happened otherwise?:lol

What makes you think I need to verify anything to you if you can't extend the same courtesy? If you don't believe God did it, why would I care?

Nonsense.

If someone were to say, "God did it," then he would need to be able to point to evidence for that claim, just as someone would need to point to evidence to support a claim that evolution explains speciation. If you've made a positive claim, then it is your job to prove (or in this case, at least demonstrate sufficient evidence for) that claim.

The difference is that there is evidence one can point to in support of the latter, but no one can point to any evidence supporting the former.

 

[JGS]

What?

It is the best scientific theory we have. That is hardly crackpot.

Granted, our knowledge is very limited since we are trying to explain something from billions of years ago with no direct physical evidence to examine.


Would you consider the talking snake theory better?

I didn't say it wasn't the best one you have. It being the only/best option most scientists accept does not by itself make it a stronger argument.

 

[JGS]

Nonsense.

If someone were to say, "God did it," then he would need to be able to point to evidence for that claim, just as someone would need to point to evidence to support a claim that evolution explains speciation. If you've made a positive claim, then it is your job to prove (or in this case, at least demonstrate sufficient evidence for) that claim.

The difference is that there is evidence one can point to in support of the latter, but no one can point to any evidence supporting the former.

Hogwash

There absolutely is no evidence that supports how life started through abiogenesis.

None whatsoever.

Nothing.

Nada.

So follow your own advice or just leave it alone.

 

[Mario]

Hogwash

There absolutely is no evidence that supports how life started through abiogenesis.

None whatsoever.

Nothing.

Nada.

So follow your own advice or just leave it alone.

There is no evidence "God did it" either, so by extension that would make Christianity a "crackpot hypothesis"?

If you actually watched the video I linked, you might gain an appreciation for some of the processes that *might* have been involved. The nature of science, thankfully, means that we will continue to form hypotheses, investigate, experiment, and explore until we raise our level of understanding and beyond, even if there is no clear understanding or evidence right now.

 

[danwarb]

Hogwash

There absolutely is no evidence that supports how life started through abiogenesis.

None whatsoever.

Nothing.

Nada.

So follow your own advice or just leave it alone.

Abiogenesis is life arising from inanimate matter. It definitely happened, at least once, you seem to be suggesting otherwise?

 

[Mumei]

Hogwash

There absolutely is no evidence that supports how life started through abiogenesis.

None whatsoever.

Nothing.

Nada.

So follow your own advice or just leave it alone.

I remember you now! :lol

You're the guy who doesn't accept laboratory models as evidence, right? Because I remember you (or at least someone who uses the same arguments) making the argument that abiogenesis was a crackpot theory before, and attempting to argue that the fact that scientists were capable of synthesizing the basic ingredients for RNA was not evidence for the plausibility of the theory, because the fact that it is possible to synthesize something in a laboratory, even one meant to mimic conditions at the time, doesn't mean that something is possible in the real world. Or something like that.

In any case, "showing that it is plausible" is much more than those who say "God did it," have ever done.

 

[Srsly]

Hogwash

There absolutely is no evidence that supports how life started through abiogenesis.

None whatsoever.

Nothing.

Nada.

So follow your own advice or just leave it alone.

There is more evidence pointing toward abiogenesis than the "God did it" theory that creationists like to espouse. Just look at early Earth geology and how certain chemicals and elements came into existence on this planet and solar system thanks to heat and pressure and then cooling . There are rocks billions of years old that serve as a window into how this planet came to a state that led to the early precursors for life. Volcanoes produced CO2 and methane that led to the organic soup that eventually led to amino acids that led to more complex amino acid that led to single-celled autographs with DNA -- very simple organic machines with the right instruction set to replicate. In fact, amino acids can be recreated in labs. Give it time and we will go from being able to create amino acids to being able to create life with actual DNA from amino acids.

 

[Nocebo]

Hogwash

There absolutely is no evidence that supports how life started through abiogenesis.

None whatsoever.

Nothing.

Nada.

So follow your own advice or just leave it alone.

What are your thoughts about RNA being formed spontaniously through chemical reactions?

 

[JGS]

There is no evidence "God did it" either, so by extension that would make Christianity a "crackpot hypothesis"?

If you actually watched the video I linked, you might gain an appreciation for some of the processes that *might* have been involved. The nature of science, thankfully, means that we will continue to form hypotheses, investigate, experiment, and explore until we raise our level of understanding and beyond, even if there is no clear understanding or evidence right now.

I've seen the videos before. To your other points

1. Christianity is already viewed as a crackpot hypothesis at best for atheists, so the playing field is far from level as it is.

2. The possibility of creation has nothing to do with a particular religious belief. On top of that, why the need to compare/contrast with a particular religion? The theory should stand/fall on it's one rather than the idea of it being a lesser of two evils. The fact that it's brought up that way so much show there's not much meat to it.

3. Argue abiogenesis on it's own merits. Leave religion out of it since I'm done with that subject in this thread, plus there are way too many beliefs on the matter even if ones here try to clump them together. Go to the religion thread if you have the guts/stomach for it! :lol

 

[JGS]

There is more evidence pointing toward abiogenesis than the "God did it" theory that creationists like to espouse. Just look at early Earth geology and how certain chemicals and elements came into existence on this planet and solar system thanks to heat and pressure and then cooling . There are rocks billions of years old that serve as a window into how this planet came to a state that led to the early precursors for life. Volcanoes produced CO2 and methane that led to the organic soup that eventually led to amino acids that led to more complex amino acid that led to single-celled autographs with DNA -- very simple organic machines with the right instruction set to replicate. In fact, amino acids can be recreated in labs. Give it time and we will go from being able to create amino acids to being able to create life with actual DNA from amino acids.

None of what you said even remotely verifies how life started, just how our planet is perfect for supporting it.

Each time someone brings up a lab experiment to prove how life started in the wild, it drives me crazy.

To make clear, I think it is higly unlikely that life will be created by man anytime soon, but that does not mean I have any doubt that they will succeed in creating some things. So in short:

What are your thoughts about RNA being formed spontaniously through chemical reactions?

I think it's neat.

 

[Srsly]

None of what you said even remotely verifies how life started, just how our planet is perfect for supporting it.

Each time someone brings up a lab experiment to prove how life started in the wild, it drives me crazy.

To make clear, I think it is higly unlikely that life will be created by man anytime soon, but that does not mean I have any doubt that they will succeed in creating some things. So in short:



I think it's neat.

Our planet now is wildly different from when life probably first started appearing it. We could not live on the same planet. I'm not sure what you mean by our planet being "perfect" for supporting life as there are a range of conditions that are capable of supporting life in some form. There is no such thing as perfect for supporting life.

As for proving how life started on this planet, it's impossible. In fact, nothing can be proven with 100% certainty, which is the beauty of science. Abiogenesis is a theory that fits best with what we know about many many subjects. Creationism doesn't have support from anything except a book.

 

[Mario]

1. Christianity is already viewed as a crackpot hypothesis at best for atheists, so the playing field is far from level as it is.

My point was that it would be a crackpot hypothesis under your definition seeing as it also has no evidence.

2. The possibility of creation has nothing to do with a particular religious belief. On top of that, why the need to compare/contrast with a particular religion? The theory should stand/fall on it's one rather than the idea of it being a lesser of two evils. The fact that it's brought up that way so much show there's not much meat to it.

It was brought up to show the weakness of your claims it has no substance as a hypotheses.

3. Argue abiogenesis on it's own merits.

Hard to do when you appear to claim there are none, seemingly discounting all existing research and claiming it a "crackpot hypothesis".

Leave religion out of it since I'm done with that subject in this thread

You keep said that before, but here you are.

plus there are way too many beliefs on the matter even if ones here try to clump them together. Go to the religion thread if you have the guts/stomach for it! :lol

I already have contributed to that thread.

 

[Kinitari]

JGS,

I think what most people have issue with is you equating Abiogenesis with Creationism, claiming they are on equal ground.

I will try avoiding specifically calling out religion here, but what is the theory of Creation other than someone simply saying "God did it" - this is, to be completely honest, a lazy and unreasonable answer.

Abiogenesis is in no way fact, but there is supporting evidence (the creation of RNA, in a lab I know, but where else is it supposed to happen? In a kitchen?) - the concept is living matter from unliving matter, considering that humans are made up of unliving matter (Carbon), and we have been able to manipulate unliving matter to act similarily to living matter (RNA again) - can you see why the theory at least has some validity?

I am not saying you have to believe the idea, or even consider it as the defacto answer for now, but you really can't intellectually claim that it is in any way in the same area of authenticity as the many creation stories.

I've mentioned it briefly before but the evolution of the inner ear in mammals is an interesting subject as it shows how body parts can move from having one function in an earlier species to another in their descendants. Certain jaw bones in reptiles gradually changed into the inner ear bones in mammals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammalian_auditory_ossicles

I'm planning on making a section in the OP showing the timeline of Human Evolution, I'll probably use this to give aforementioned section some meat. Thanks!

 

[danwarb]

JGS, abiogenesis is the study of how some kind of self replicating molecule arose from inanimate matter. That there's no overwhelming consensus on the matter doesn't mean there's no evidence that it happened at all, it most certainly did.

If you prefer to believe that whichever mythical being kicked-off the universe, with all of the building blocks for life in abundance, as they are; why have it swoop in ~10bn years later to assemble a very simple life form on Earth, that may have arisen anyway? You can still say that 'god did it', or planned it

 

[JGS]

It was brought up to show the weakness of your claims it has no substance as a hypotheses.

I know. It's the old bait and switch to hide the weakness of your claims.

Hard to do when you appear to claim there are none, seemingly discounting all existing research and claiming it a "crackpot hypothesis".

There is no existing research beyond what is written which scientifically speaking is dicouted automatically since the other aspects to the hypothesis are not witnessed, observed, or even created in a lab.

Crackpot does denote a minority view though, so I'll just say flawed hypothesis since the number that follow it would be irrelevant. I guess it's less inflammatory too, but I wasn't the one who used the word at first. I just thought it fit.

My apologies.

You keep said that before, but here you are.

Others are bringing up religion.:lol

I am not talking about it. I am perfectly comfortable talking about any subject without including religion as long as religion isn't the topic of course.

The word religion is not so powerful in and of itself and i haven't uttered a single belief except for disbelief in abiogenesis.

I already have contributed to that thread.

Good for you. So you should already know how I view the religious aspects of it. Why carry it to a new thread?

 

[Mario]

Crackpot does denote a minority view though, so I'll just say flawed hypothesis since the number that follow it would be irrelevant. I guess it's less inflammatory too, but I wasn't the one who used the word at first. I just thought it fit.

I'm not sure "flawed" is an appropriate word to use either given that would suggest the hypothesis is inherently defective with some known error.

I think using the words "unproven" and "incomplete" would be more appropriate.

 

[JGS]

JGS, abiogenesis is the study of how some kind of self replicating molecule arose from inanimate matter. That there's no overwhelming consensus on the matter doesn't mean there's no evidence that it happened at all, it most certainly did.

This isn't about what I prefer, it's about the bold and the whacky concept that despite this major flaw, it is widely embraced on the sol basis of it being the only possible option except for one thing. It's not possible. It's not possible at each level of the RNA, amino acid,DNA, etc...

At the end of the day, it is completely irrelevant what someone believes regarding how life started except in regards to what makes them feel better.

How life started is certainly an interesting subject but not one that can be supported by scientific data in the slightest- at least not at this time. It's all sci-fi. Therefore, I have no reason to embrace a belief/theory/hypothesis that has Swiss cheese holes in it just because a scientist who has no more ability to go back in time than I do says it's the truth.

 

[dinazimmerman]

why we still got monkeys

 

[JGS]

I'm not sure "flawed" is an appropriate word to use either given that would suggest the hypothesis is inherently defective with some known error.

I think using the words "unproven" and "incomplete" would be more appropriate.

No I like defective.

 

[Nocebo]

I'm planning on making a section in the OP showing the timeline of Human Evolution, I'll probably use this to give aforementioned section some meat. Thanks!

How big of a time line are we talking here? There's a neat vid narrated by Carl Sagan that illustrates the evolution of humans from beginning to end.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-wQAp8s1kk
It's not very detailed on the how so I'm not sure if it has any merit for your idea.

 

[dinazimmerman]

OP no good. what's an evolution thread without a discussion of evolutionary psychology, gene-culture coevolution, and the like.

 

[archnemesis]

This isn't about what I prefer, it's about the bold and the whacky concept that despite this major flaw, it is widely embraced on the sol basis of it being the only possible option except for one thing. It's not possible. It's not possible at each level of the RNA, amino acid,DNA, etc...

It doesn't necessarily need to happen on every level simultaneously. It seems likely catalytic RNA (also known as Ribozyme or RNA enzyme) was formed before proteins or DNA. And as you already know, scientists have successfully demonstrated that amino acids can spontaneously form small peptides. Is it really that far fetched, even if there are missing puzzle pieces?

 

[Nocebo]

How life started is certainly an interesting subject but not one that can be supported by scientific data in the slightest- at least not at this time. It's all sci-fi. Therefore, I have no reason to embrace a belief/theory/hypothesis that has Swiss cheese holes in it just because a scientist who has no more ability to go back in time than I do says it's the truth.

I think people take issue with you claiming abiogenesis can't be supported even in the slightest bit. Which is clearly wrong. Since we know certain building blocks of life can occur naturally through chemical processes.

 

[Mario]

No I like defective.

Care to point out the specific "defects" or "flaws"of the current abiogensis hypothesis?

It would be useful if you link to specific scientific evidence that contradict the aspects of abiogenesis you call out as defects.

 

[danwarb]

This isn't about what I prefer, it's about the bold and the whacky concept that despite this major flaw, it is widely embraced on the sol basis of it being the only possible option except for one thing. It's not possible. It's not possible at each level of the RNA, amino acid,DNA, etc...

At the end of the day, it is completely irrelevant what someone believes regarding how life started except in regards to what makes them feel better.

How life started is certainly an interesting subject but not one that can be supported by scientific data in the slightest- at least not at this time. It's all sci-fi. Therefore, I have no reason to embrace a belief/theory/hypothesis that has Swiss cheese holes in it just because a scientist who has no more ability to go back in time than I do says it's the truth.

But there was a time before life on Earth, and now, quite clearly, there is life on Earth. The universe is packed with amino acids and all the elements that make up life as we know it.

We know it can happen because it happened. If it happens that God did it, 'Abiogenesis Theory' should eventually include God doing it.

 

[Chuckie]

How big of a time line are we talking here? There's a neat vid narrated by Carl Sagan that illustrates the evolution of humans from beginning to end.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-wQAp8s1kk
It's not very detailed on the how so I'm not sure if it has any merit for your idea.

I had to laugh at that first comment

The belief that a cosmic jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolicaly eat his flesh and&#65279; telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul because a rib-women was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree makes perfect sense to me.

 

[jdogmoney]

This isn't about what I prefer, it's about the bold and the whacky concept that despite this major flaw, it is widely embraced on the sol basis of it being the only possible option except for one thing. It's not possible. It's not possible at each level of the RNA, amino acid,DNA, etc...

Since the point of the lab experiments was to show that it is, at least, possible for abiogenesis to occur, which they did quite admirably, one wonders...why is it "not possible", and what would it take to change your mind?

 

[Lesath]

This isn't about what I prefer, it's about the bold and the whacky concept that despite this major flaw, it is widely embraced on the sol basis of it being the only possible option except for one thing. It's not possible. It's not possible at each level of the RNA, amino acid,DNA, etc...

At the end of the day, it is completely irrelevant what someone believes regarding how life started except in regards to what makes them feel better.

How life started is certainly an interesting subject but not one that can be supported by scientific data in the slightest- at least not at this time. It's all sci-fi. Therefore, I have no reason to embrace a belief/theory/hypothesis that has Swiss cheese holes in it just because a scientist who has no more ability to go back in time than I do says it's the truth.

I don't wish to derail an evolution thread, but abiogenesis is the explanation that makes the least additional assumptions, and is therefore the most logical, however flawed you think it to be.

In trying to explain abiogenesis, scientists have proposed a set of models; it isn't some singular theory.

 

[JGS]

But there was a time before life on Earth, and now, quite clearly, there is life on Earth. The universe is packed with amino acids and all the elements that make up life as we know it.

We know it can happen because it happened. If it happens that God did it, 'Abiogenesis Theory' should eventually include God doing it.

That's fine.

As an aside, too much is being made of a flippant comment I said about God did it. It was to get a rise out of people who not only don't believe in God, but dislike strongly adherents to religious belief which is bigotry and repulsive.

It's a weakness that I like messing with them especially after being insulted. It strikes them as odd when it's said. It works. It in no way is discussing specific religious beliefs so there is no way to disprove them or discuss them but you're welcome to try since the OP doesn't mind. I'm not, but you're welcome to.

Believe me, whatever interpretation/belief I have has more than that one line behind it and I have been fine with discussing it in other threads. It's not like the braniac intelligence level is any higher in this thread than in others. I'm just keeping it on topic.

I also almost always replywhen addressed. It's a weakness too. When ones stop replying to me, I will stop posting.

 

[JGS]

I don't wish to derail an evolution thread, but abiogenesis is the explanation that makes the least additional assumptions, and is therefore the most logical, however flawed you think it to be.

In trying to explain abiogenesis, scientists have proposed a set of models; it isn't some singular theory.

I'm aware of that. I said the first paragraph already, just with more skepticism.

BTW, although not the same by a long shot, I think abiogenesis is fair game in an evolution thread which is why I talk about it (Unless some want to view it as a religious belief!), but if I'm wrong I'll stop talking about it too.

 

[JGS]

Since the point of the lab experiments was to show that it is, at least, possible for abiogenesis to occur, which they did quite admirably, one wonders...why is it "not possible", and what would it take to change your mind?

Well, of course it's possible to create something. The question is if it's possible for nature by itself to create something without human aid. I say no.

Honestly, what would convince me is time travel, otherwise I don't see how.

I guess if, although still controlled, science was able to create the environment and let nature takes it's course and each of the steps were met toward creating life, I would be less of a skeptic.

 

[JGS]

Care to point out the specific "defects" or "flaws"of the current abiogensis hypothesis?

It would be useful if you link to specific scientific evidence that contradict the aspects of abiogenesis you call out as defects.

There is no scientific evidence to abiogensis. That's the flaw!:lol

 

[jiien]

Well, of course it's possible to create something. The question is if it's possible for nature by itself to create something without human aid. I say no.

Honestly, what would convince me is time travel, otherwise I don't see how.

I guess if, although still controlled, science was able to create the environment and let nature takes it's course and each of the steps were met toward creating life, I would be less of a skeptic.

But the fact is that science was able to take that first step.

I mean, it's like someone claiming that they can stack 10 bricks, one on top of the other. You then challenge that assertion, and though the person doesn't have the money or strength to pile all ten bricks, one on top of the other, they do have two bricks, and put one brick on top of the other. You then come back and say, no, I will not even consider the possibility that you can make a tower of ten bricks until you actually make a tower of ten bricks, even though you've already shown some of the basic construction and given the first step. Even though you don't have enough time, or money, or resources, I still won't accept the possibility until you do.

It's very shortsighted thinking.

 

[PantherLotus]

Dude. Stop with the creationism bullshit already. I want to see more diagrams and pictures, less shitting-up-the-thread please.

 

[Kinitari]

Dude. Stop with the creationism bullshit already. I want to see more diagrams and pictures, less shitting-up-the-thread please.

Here's a picture describing the evolution of the Rhino!

It's sometimes very surprising seeing how two animals you wouldn't there are that closely related are actually cousins! I mean the Rhino and the Tapir? Crazy!

 

[crazy monkey]

 

[Kinitari]

In my recent research, I've come across a lot of sites that use the concept of 'living fossils' to push forward the claim that the ToE is incorrect. I want to discuss this in more depth, but I wont be able to until I get home from work, until then I'll put up some links for those interested in reading - quick warning, looks like most (if not all) these sites have an Islamic slant.

www.living-fossils.com

http://us1.harunyahya.com/Detail/T/EDCRFV/productId/4182/LIVING_FOSSILS

 

[PantherLotus]

Here's a picture describing the evolution of the Rhino!

It's sometimes very surprising seeing how two animals you wouldn't there are that closely related are actually cousins! I mean the Rhino and the Tapir? Crazy!

Fucking awesome! MOAR OF THEEZ PLEEZ


Btw, I wonder how far off Hippos and pigs really are?