|
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us. Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
|
Evolution Exposed. Question 1 of (maybe more than) a thousand lol
Posted on: March 10, 2007 - 4:47pm
   Offline
Evolution Exposed. Question 1 of (maybe more than) a thousand lol
"If we don't know the conditions on the early Earth, how can we be sure about how cells first formed?" Pg. 10 of Evolution Exposed by Roger Patterson. Responses? I'm just trying to get a balanced view here.
|
|
Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2021.
|
I think this is a abiogenesis related, not evolution related.
Oh, ok. Sorry, I don't really know the difference. Where should I post this...
One of the greatest mysteries in all of science is how the first life arose. Of course, here it is important to define life. Life is a set of autocatalytic chemical processes aimed at reproduction of the self. Unlike other chemical complex systems like crystals, biochemical molecules are remarkable for the reproductive capabilities. I suppose, by that definition, that Ribonucleic Acid is probably life. It is the building block from which all life was originally based, before being gradually phased out by DNA, although obviously RNA still retains a critical place in biochemistry.
The attempt to answer that has come in the form of a hypothesis known as abiogenesis . How did the organic polymerated strings of nucleic acids or indeed any necessary function of life arise? Whoever answers it will probably receive a Nobel prize from every field imaginable, although I imagine the awards will have to go to a great many people. There are numerous hypotheses out there, autocatalysis, RNA world, lipid-based world.
All The hypotheses begin with the Earth’s hydrogenesis, the formation of the oceans. Due to the polar nature of water, dissolving free ions with its slightly polar configuration, it is an ideal “primordial soup” to use the phrase, for the formation of simple self-replicating abiotic molecules. Due to the atmospheric difference of the Earth at the time, the Primordial Soup was very different. It was much warmer, an ideal incubator for the development of simple biomolecules. Experiments have shown that these simple amino and nucleic acids can arise in a hydrated anoxic environment provided there is sunlight. Molecules like Cytosine and Adenine are reasonably simple and will reassemble. This is not probable, but considering the vast size of the ocean and the span of time, the Law of Averages states it will eventually happen. The first abiotic reassembling molecules will vastly increase the chance that they will form life components like RNA; this is the basis of the RNA world Hypothesis.
But really it is a non-issue. Evolution does not deal in primordial chemistry. Primordial chemists deal in primordial chemistry.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
We will probably never know the EXACT answer to that question because all the evidence has been wiped out(no fossils).
The best we can do is hypothesize and come up with experimental models.
As others have stated, this has nothing to do with Evolution which is the origins of different SPECIES, not life itself.
Most atheist, if not all, are content with not having all the answers. Theist will automatically inject god(s) where our knowledge is lacking...the god of the gaps argument.
I think this is okay here, A perfect example of people not knowing what evolution is and is not!
From what I know, there have been experiments (successful ones, too) on how life can form.
What we define as "primordial soup", in those experiments, has successfully generated organic matter and proto-cells. And that was just one possibility of "primordial soup". Nowhere is it written that only one type of such "soup" can finally come to generate life. So, as the principle is demonstrated, it only remains to find out exactly what was back then.
In other words, once we know that life can become "life" through natural means, we have the key to evolution's ignition. We will probably never know for sure what "primordial soup" was there on young Earth, but it doesn't necessarily matter that much. The principle has been demonstrated.
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
2 points: Just because we don't 'know' exactly the conditions on Earth around 2,500 million years ago doesn't mean scientists can't make very educated estimations based on geology etc.
Secondly, cells didn't just 'form' from nowhere. There is stacks of sub-cellular life out there, like bacteria and viruses that don't have half the structures of a cell, and it's not hard to see how in tens of millions of years (thousands of billions of generations for a bacterium) a colony of bacteria-like organisms, all good at different jobs, through parasitism or symbiosis (or both) could become a cell and gain an advantage in survival and reproduction by doing so.
When you see a building you don't think it was put up all in one go as it appears today; it was built with scaffolding. Replicating molecules are themselves complicated, and at the start may have been a by-product of 'scaffolding' provided by crystals, silt, pressure at the bottom of the sea, extreme heat at the edge of volcanic geysers or something. Now all we see is the building (actually 'buildings' that evolved and developed from other 'buildings'!), not the scaffolding, so theists say, 'That couldn't have just appeared so God made it'.
As Ig said, Patterson is using a God of the Gaps argument. People used to think God(s) made thunder and lightning, plagues and floods. Every time the mechanisms behind such things were demonstrated to be wholly natural, theists drew back to remaining gaps in human knowledge and said Ah, because we don't know it must be God's doing... If scientists produce simple amino acids from gases and electricity even now theists say, Ah well that's still not RNA is it? And even if they did produce a simple RNA are theists likely to say, OK you're right, and my 2000 year old work of literature is wrong? No, they'll say, Ah, but that's not a living cell, or Ah but you haven't explained the origin of the universe yet - you still need God for those. The history of religion is a history of failing to explain or predict anything in nature, simply shrugging shoulders, and saying We don't understand so it must be supernatural, and then repressing or even killing anyone who disagrees...
The "evolution" that Patterson is "exposing" is a distorted strawman version of evolutionary theory - the point you posted is evidence of that. My advice, toss that book away and pick up an evolutionary biology peer reviewed journal.
"....a distorted strawman version of evolutionary theory"
I won't lie, I have no idea what that means lol. And yeah, I'm considering tossing out.
A strawman is where you take your opponent's weakest arguments and propositions and debunk them, then say "hey everyone, look how great I am". "Evolution Exposed" takes all the weakest pieces of evidence and hitherto unexplained phenomena like abiogenesis and tries to debunk evolution based on that. Essentially, the book states: I DONT UNDERSTAND EVOLUTION THEREFORE IT IS WRONG.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Oh, ok. Yeah I'd say that's pretty much what he's doing.
I thought a Strawman was when you set up an argument, claiming that it's your opponents' argument, even thought it isn't your opponents'.
Some places to find scientific information upon evolutionary theory:
Mostly articles but they are pretty decent:
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/index.html
PLoS Biology - the Public Library of Science's online biology journal. It is an actual, peer-reviewed scientific journal accept it is completely open access to all material for everyone to view:
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=index-html&issn=1545-7885
BioMed Central also has peer-reviewed open access journals and one specifically on evolutionary biology:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcevolbiol/
For brushing up on genetics, the University of Utah has this website which can help in understanding many items:
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/
The PNAS is a great journal which has tons of articles in every issue. The latest issues online are secure but after, I believe, 6 months the articles can be viewed by anyone.
http://www.pnas.org/
Hitting up the local library and looking through journals there could help keep abreast of the latest research - most libraries carry at least Nature, Science and PNAS. A decent collegiate text on the subject can help too.
But if you're looking for something more basic and don't feel like a trip to the library Talk Origins has a decent basic evolutionary biology FAQ and UCMP Berkeley has a good website on the basics:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.htmlA straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)
"If we don't know the conditions on the early Earth, how can we be sure about how cells first formed?" is a generalisation and it is not even a statement but just a fair question.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking when I first read it, but most creationists/theists won't see it that way...
And I gotta have a response for them when someone mentions it in biology. We have a couple born agains in there who just got done reading the book so yeah....