|
|||
|
Alright, it's time to get down to brass tacks, and discover why the Myth surrounding evolution must be false. First, I'm going to say that normally I would deal with the microevolution/macroevolution dichotomy. I would normally discuss how the theory of macroevolution (usually stated in a paragraph of a biology book, after two chapters dealing with micro) has very little, or no actual evidence (aside from hoaxes), and is based on probabilities so astronomical, that scientific laws have been based on their reciprocal. However, I will abstain from getting into this type of argument. What I would like to show you all, is that the Myth surrounding this theory, which pervades most minds today, cannot possibly be true. The Myth goes something like this. Matter has always existed, or came into existance by a big bang. On a random planet orbiting a random star, amino acids in a primordial soup formed a cell. This cell multiplied and grew, and eventually evolved into other species. Finally, much further down the line, man evolved. This cave man believed in gods, but through the use of science, came to reject them, as he gained an understanding of reality. Soon, we all will turn into demi-gods, or all will turn again into an empty void (pick whichever ending you like). Now, why can't I believe this? I'll tell you. The main reason people believe this theory, is because they believe there is factual evidence for it. Correct? Correct. All scientific discoveries are made by inferences from observed facts. However, what if our inferences are invalid? What if the logic/reason which our minds think is sound, is actually erroneous? If this is so (if Reason tells us nothing about Reality), then we can know nothing. In order to accept science, I must first believe in the validity of Reason. I must believe, as all scientists do, that "reality in the remotest nebula or the remotest part obeys the thought--laws of the human scientist here and now in his laboratory" (this is why math is called the "universal language"). In other words, I must make Reason an absolute. Yet, the Myth tells me that Reason, and all my thoughts, are merely the unintended byproduct of a mindless progression. Here is a contradiction. If my logical thoughts and reasonings about the universe are merely what a creature like me, in this particular place in the cosmos, "happens" to think, then there is no reason why I should assume them to be true. Even if my thoughts about reality are correct, in one particular instance, it would only be by mere coincidence. If reasoning is merely an abstraction caused by clumps of neurons interacting in a certain way, then why should I trust it, even when it tells me that my reasoning is just the interaction of a clump of cells? You see? My problem with evolution is not the lack of evidence. It's not even the fact that developementalism was already popular in society before the Origin of Species was written. My problem is, to believe it, I must either believe it blindly, or trust fully in perpetual happy coincidence. I am not prepared to do either of those. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgReligion and Mysteries, from worship to werewolvesReligious & Philosophical TopicsThe Evolutionary Myth |
|
|||
|
stinkz: or trust fully in perpetual happy coincidence. Hrmm I can see what you're getting at, I don't really believe most of that anyway, it's about as far out as Religion but Religion normally has scriptures and writing from hundreds of years ago that can give some kinda of evidence to believe in! I don't not believe in some evolution, I could believe we evolved from apes because of our similiaraties but the big bang theory doesn't have much to back it up! "So how was the universe created?" "Uuuuh, there was a big explosion and everything was created from that" "Really?" "Yeah sure, why not" stinkz: and all my thoughts, are merely the unintended byproduct of a mindless progression. Kinda makes life seem pretty wasteful! stinkz: The main reason people believe this theory, is because they believe there is factual evidence for it. Well I'm not really sure what the factual evidence would be rather than single cells, monkeys and then us! But my question is, why believe in a religion then? Some believe in religion blindly and believing in an old Book supposebly written by people visited by angels seems as far out as a Big Explosion creating the universe and eventually creating us! Although some religions have more evidence than the Big Bang, they could still just be big hoaxes that have grown beyond a joke! posted by hungarian kid |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
hungarian kid: But my question is, why believe in a religion then? Why? I'll tell you why. If Reason is really not just the way humans happen to think, and actualy is a cosmic connection with universal reality, now what? Strange we should have such an ability, don't you think? I find it hard to believe that it is anything other than supernatural. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
your "myth" is utterly flawed because it seems you have bothered reading into the so called "primordial soup" scenario the methods behind it have been tested in labs and are relatively sound they involve the combination of 2 groups...a phosphate group and a fatty lipid group which are found in abundance in non organic states when combined they create a phospholipid group which has a hydrophobic end (the lipid "tails") and a hydrophilic end (the phosphate "head") in order to satisfy both ends of the groups and there attraction/repultion of water then these groups tend to line up with other phospholipid groups until the form a complete 3d shape with the phosphate heads on the outside and the lipid tails on the inside for those of you who know anything about biology you will know that this is the exact structure (minus the protein channels) of a cell membrane that all living cells contain this is known as a pseudo cell...essentially it creates a separate enviroment within it it is this method in which cells are thought to have come about another tested although granted the experiment in its entirity is flawed is the miller urey experiment it did highlight the fact that organic compounds are easily made from inorganic molecules under the right conditions also mentioned in the article below is the oro experiment where hydrogen cyanide and ammonia are prerequiites for making adenine(a base if DNA) and also a part of adenosine triphosphate( a molecule formed in cell mitochondria that is used for energy) 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 The gases they used were methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), and water (H2O). Next, he ran a continuous electric current through the system, to simulate lightning storms believed to be common on the early earth. Analysis of the experiment was done by chromotography. At the end of one week, Miller observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed some of the amino acids which are used to make proteins. Perhaps most importantly, Miller's experiment showed that organic compounds such as amino acids, which are essential to cellular life, could be made easily under the conditions that scientists believed to be present on the early earth. This enormous finding inspired a multitude of further experiments. In 1961, Juan Oro found that amino acids could be made from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia in an aqueous solution. He also found that his experiment produced an amazing amount of the nucleotide base, adenine. Adenine is of tremendous biological significance as an organic compound because it is one of the four bases in RNA and DNA. It is also a component of adenosine triphosphate, or ATP, which is a major energy releasing molecule in cells. Experiments conducted later showed that the other RNA and DNA bases could be obtained through simulated prebiotic chemistry with a reducing atmosphere. 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. There has been a recent wave of skepticism concerning Miller's experiment because it is now believed that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain predominantly reductant molecules. Another objection is that this experiment required a tremendous amount of energy. While it is believed lightning storms were extremely common on the primitive Earth, they were not continuous as the Miller/Urey experiment portrayed. Thus it has been argued that while amino acids and other organic compounds may have been formed, they would not have been formed in the amounts which this experiment produced. Many of the compounds made in the Miller/Urey experiment are known to exist in outer space. On September 28, 1969, a meteorite fell over Murchison, Australia. While only 100 kilograms were recovered, analysis of the meteorite has shown that it is rich with amino acids. Over 90 amino acids have been identified by researchers to date. Nineteen of these amino acids are found on Earth. (table showing comparison of Murchison meteorite to Miller/Urey experiment) The early Earth is believed to be similar to many of the asteroids and comets still roaming the galaxy. If amino acids are able to survive in outer space under extreme conditions, then this might suggest that amino acids were present when the Earth was formed. More importantly, the Murchison meteorite has demonstrated that the Earth may have acquired some of its amino acids and other organic compounds by planetary infall. If these compounds were not created in a reducing atmosphere here on Earth as Miller suggested, then where did they come from? New theories have recently been offered as alternative sites for the origin of life. posted by the anomaly |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
I seriously hope you don't think you're telling me anything new, anomaly. I know what phospholipids do. However, the membrane hardly constitutes the cell! The only reason they call a phospholipid bilayer a "pseudo-cell" is to appease people like you, who want to believe it. The improbable part deals with DNA. Ask Antony Flew, he was pretty much the number one spokesperson for Atheism, yet he now believes in God strictly because of the improbabilities. But, that's not even the point. Try staying on topic and addressing my actual reason for not believing it's true. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
calm down son...you'll burst a blood vessel if you carry on like that "However, the membrane hardly constitutes the cell" given that the phospholipid bi-layer controls everything that enters and exits a cell..i'd say its highly important in the evolution of the cell...without the development of a cell membrane...there would be no cell as for the occurance of DNA...didn't you read the post i just put up...adenine formation from non organic molecules?... moving on through the evolution by endosymbiosis ♣ at the very least these things can be proven to occur in the right atmospheric conditions...as for the existance of god...there is no such evidence at all...merely the babblings of man in various forms such as the bible etc and as for anthony flew...how does he know which god from which belief system is responsible for the creation of life given the fact that civilisations throughout history have believed in hundreds upon hundreds of "gods"...where is the sense in his conclusion that one particular one is responsible for life and where is his evidence for it? yep...that's right...as absent as the god he talks off posted by the anomaly |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
anomaly: the phospholipid bi-layer controls everything that enters and exits a cell No, my friend, it doesn't control everything. The limitless variety of protein channels do. anomaly: as for the occurance of DNA...didn't you read the post i just put up...adenine formation from non organic molecules?... Once again, the formation of nucleotides, or parts of a nucleotide, does not constitute production of DNA. Even the simplest of bacteria have DNA strands which are thousands of nucleotides long, and irreducibly complex. In fact, if a virus were to come and edit a short piece, the organism would be unable to survive. But, none of this matters, at all. I already admitted that many particulars about evolution could be true. But, the Myth, as a whole, cannot be. anomaly: given the fact that civilisations throughout history have believed in hundreds upon hundreds of "gods"...where is the sense in his conclusion that one particular one is responsible for life and where is his evidence for it? This shows that you have bought whole-heartedly into the Myth I was telling you about. stinkz: This cave man believed in gods, but through the use of science, came to reject them, as he gained an understanding of reality. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
stinkz: If my logical thoughts and reasonings about the universe are merely what a creature like me, in this particular place in the cosmos, "happens" to think, then there is no reason why I should assume them to be true. Even if my thoughts about reality are correct, in one particular instance, it would only be by mere coincidence. What if the way how humans think is universal? Who says that neurons think? Maybe it's something else. posted by knn |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
the anomaly: the methods behind it have been tested in labs and are relatively sound
they involve the combination of 2 groups...a phosphate group and a fatty lipid group which are found in abundance in non organic states I think stinkz talks about an abstraction layer higher than any biological experiments. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
stinkz: I know what phospholipids do. However, the membrane hardly constitutes the cell! The only reason they call a phospholipid bilayer a "pseudo-cell" is to appease people like you, who want to believe it. Exactly, exactly. Boil an egg. You will get nice proteins too, but hardly life. stinkz: Ask Antony Flew, he was pretty much the number one spokesperson for Atheism, yet he now believes in God strictly because of the improbabilities. Then his conclusion is flawed. Tell Anthony the following: "Because it's improbable please believe in 2 female and 1 male god, who created the universe." The conclusion "Science misses something" -> "There is a god" -> "The bible is true" is even more flawed than science could ever be. This flawed conclusion is the same as "Science misses something" -> "There are 4 gods" -> "The bible is nonsense" posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
the anomaly: calm down son...you'll burst a blood vessel if you carry on like that Then tomorrow he may be dead, but how would that be different from any other day? This is a war, and he is a soldier. Death can come for him at any time, in any place. Now consider the alternative. What if he is right? What if the bible is true? What if tomorrow the war could be over. Isn't that worth bursting for? Isn't that worth dying for? (to say it with Morpheus) posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
stinkz: This shows that you have bought whole-heartedly into the Myth I was telling you about. Science as religion? Atheistic indoctrination? posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
stinkz: No, my friend, it doesn't control everything. The limitless variety of protein channels do. Exactly. The layer is just a soap bubble basically. It's only the most basic basis for the living/steering itself. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
nothing in your argument is anything more than what has been put before...it all revolves around part x in evolutionary argument is flawed therefor god exists and created all life its totally illogical and weak and well you know it posted by the anomaly |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
"DNA strands which are thousands of nucleotides long, and irreducibly complex." far from complex really considering there are only 4 nucleotide bases in DNA and only adenine can pair with thymine and only cytosine can pair with guanine or are you arguing for a higher intelligence puting all those pairs into the correct order to make life? posted by the anomaly |
|||
|
|||
|
The time now is 23 May 2012, 22:02 php B.B. |