Creation vs. Evolution

[alwight]

Do you have any "self replicating molecule" in mind which is the missing link to life?

And even if there were such, explain to me how this brings us closer to life?

I think you are in denial of one of the foundational laws of biology, that the simplest unit of life is the cell. If it were not, then somewhere on earth, in the laboratory etc. we should have discovered such a molecule. Again, do you have anything in mind?

I have no idea what an original self-replicating molecule would be, there is no way of knowing. I am simply presenting what I think is a reasonable natural possibility. If any such thing came about today I don't suppose it would last 5 minutes given the current competition.
This isn't about calling something "life", it's about evolution. I would think that "life" is however a natural result of greater complexity. There may not have been an actual moment when "life" came about any more that when a new species can be said to exist, since both can be considered to happen gradually over time.

 

[iouae]

Where did I say that?

Here, today Tue 19 Jan, your name is Jose Fly. You wrote "the first 2 billion years of life on earth was dedicated solely to prokaryote evolution".

 

[Jose Fly]

The three assumptions I mentioned are correct.

Oh my goodness!! Seriously? Even after you copied from a YEC's newspaper article that says they aren't?

Wow.

However..... thousands of scientists (geologists, biologists, geneticists, adtrono.ers etc) are saying the evidence supports thousands of years...definetly not billions.

Really? Where do you get the idea that there are "thousands" of such scientists? Any data to back that up?

Im sure you are aware of RATE.... a team of 8 PhD scientists who spent a couple years studying radiometric dating results. Their study shows that the consensus view of radiometric dating is flawed. The technical report can be obtained but here is a laymans report.

Oh yay!!! You brought up "RATE"....I love this! It's one of my favorite creationist topics. Here's why...

An Evening with RATE

Basically, Dr. Feeley (a non-creationist) of the University of Montana went to a RATE conference, listened to some talks, asked some questions, and posted a summary. It's hilarious...

I did have an interesting conversation saturday morning with RATE coordinator, Larry Vardiman, who seems like a pretty decent guy.
I asked why no recognized experts on radiometric dating were invited to participate in the conference, given that none of the speakers had any training or experience in experimental geochronology. He was candid enough to admit that they would have liked to included one on the team, but there are no young- earth geochronologists in the world.​

IOW, "Um....how come you YEC's don't have any actual geochronologists at this conference?" "Because there are no YEC geochronologists". :rotfl:

But it gets better....

He also agreed that the mechanism for accelerating radioactivity by nearly a billion-fold during a single year (the flood year) was a major problem for the group that in the end will probably only be resolved by invoking a “cosmic-scale event” or miracle. He further conceded that at this point they have no physical evidence for this miracle. Apparently, dissipation of the heat produced during the event is, in the end, going to require yet an additional miracle.​

So he takes their proposal and asks "How does that actually work, and where did the heat go", and the creationist answer is "Um.....God". :chuckle:

Then the Grand Finale....

I asked the panel (Humphreys, Snelling, Baumgardner) a slight variation of the question you suggested: Why did John Baumgardner and the RATE group accept $2.5 million dollars in private donations to conduct young-earth research at the same time Baumgardner was publishing old-earth and old-moon papers in mainstream scientific journals?​

Oooh, good question! Why are they fleecing the flock for donations to work on YEC, while at the same time publishing old-earth material in the scientific journals?

The crowd went wild. Of course, they had no idea Baumgardner was at the same time personally contributing to the mountain of evidence
that the earth and moon are old. Baumgardner stumbled and bumbled with his response, saying things such as his coauthors input faulty assumptions into his Terra code and that the interpretations were therefore incorrect, but that the physics (his contribution) was correct. He then went into a ten minute soul-searching monologue about his faith in scripture, which is fine, but hardly seemed relevant.

I pressed further and asked if he would write letters to Nature and JGR clarifying his position and the errors in the assumptions and interpretations made by his coauthors. He would not agree to do this and surprisingly revealed that at least one more old earth paper is coming out in the near future with his name on it.​

Now that's hilarious! And how did the YEC's take to being questioned?

Well, after the Q & A session Humphreys called me “evil” for asking such a question​

Once again we see how it is impossible to advocate creationism honestly.

 

[Jose Fly]

Here, today Tue 19 Jan, your name is Jose Fly. You wrote "the first 2 billion years of life on earth was dedicated solely to prokaryote evolution".

And somehow you got from that, "prokaryotic life is the simplest we can go"?

 

[iouae]

I have no idea what an original self-replicating molecule would be, there is no way of knowing. I am simply presenting what I think is a reasonable natural possibility. If any such thing came about today I don't suppose it would last 5 minutes given the current competition.
This isn't about calling something "life", it's about evolution. I would think that "life" is however a natural result of greater complexity. There may not have been an actual moment when "life" came about any more that when a new species can be said to exist, since both can be considered to happen gradually over time.

So, you take your stand on a bigfoot, self-replicating molecule, which would probably not last 5 minutes today, [even in a lab??].

How helpful is that?

Have you considered all the evidence today is that there are million of single celled species around today proving that life is irreducibly complex, otherwise it is not life.

Congratulations, like the Catholics, you have invented a new "place" called "purgatory" because this is easier to believe in than alive vs dead.

 

[iouae]

And somehow you got from that, "prokaryotic life is the simplest we can go"?

Well go simpler then.

 

[alwight]

So, you take your stand on a bigfoot, self-replicating molecule, which would probably not last 5 minutes today, [even in a lab??].

How helpful is that?

Have you considered all the evidence today is that there are million of single celled species around today proving that life is irreducibly complex, otherwise it is not life.

Congratulations, like the Catholics, you have invented a new "place" called "purgatory" because this is easier to believe in than alive vs dead.

I'm simply saying that you don't seem to be interested in rational natural answers, perhaps because you don't want there to be a natural answer? :think:

 

[iouae]

Jose and Alwight

We seem to have lost the plot.

I used the analogy of a watch, where a whole lot of things have to be in place for life to exist.

I ASSUMED that when talking about life we were all on the same page, that life does not [here on earth] come simpler than a single cell.

So I thought we were haggling about what the simplest life looks like, that could exist and procreate itself.

Then you felt I was heading to irreducible complexity of life - which probably is where I was going to take my stand by comparing this simplest form of life to a watch by examining the odds of it all coming together.

If you don't think that the cell is the simplest form of self-perpetuating life, then you have created your own new field of biology - "not-quite-bio-logy".

 

[Jose Fly]

Well go simpler then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocell

 

[Hedshaker]

Miracles are events that can not be explained by natural causes, done by what a person deems as "God". Magic is an event that can not be explained by natural causes, done by what a person deems as "anything other than God". It is very simple. I'm surprised you do not get it.

So turning non-fermented water into wine is not magic? What about a bunch of fish appearing from nowhere? Just like the bunny out of a hat?

Apologetics aside, there is no difference, really.

 

[iouae]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocell

So what you have here is a proto-cell-membrane.

It is what I would consider one not-quite-part of the watch. It cannot replicate.

It reminds me of those experiments where they added urea and a spark [lightning] +??? +??? and got some amino acids to form, which some folks [who slept through biology class] got all excited about, as if man had created life.

 

[Jose Fly]

So what you have here is a proto-cell-membrane.

It is what I would consider one not-quite-part of the watch. It cannot replicate.

It reminds me of those experiments where they added urea and a spark [lightning] +??? +??? and got some amino acids to form, which some folks [who slept through biology class] got all excited about, as if man had created life.

You should research this topic before trying to debate it. There are no shortage of self-replicators (some of which even undergo Darwinian evolution) inside of protocells.

 

[iouae]

You should research this topic before trying to debate it. There are no shortage of self-replicators (some of which even undergo Darwinian evolution) inside of protocells.

Give a source then.

But at the end of the day it still boils down to you saying life can exist in a simpler form than a cell, which all evidence is to the contrary.

I do believe that parts of a watch could exist outside a watch.
The marvel is in bringing all the elements together, not in just creating some proto-part.

My opinion is that unless you can make by some means, an actual cell membrane, outside the cell, then you have nothing.

Likewise, all life today contains DNA or RNA. Unless you can create and replicate an actual bit of DNA or RNA outside the cell, I feel you have nothing, since that is what all life today contains.

 

[TheDuke]

Take a deep breath

Take a deep breath

Dear Iouae,

I hope you've received my latest reply.

I think we all here agree that life forms how we know them today are to a varying degree ultimately "irreducibly complex". Now how long it's going to take before science can "create" life in the lab does not matter. Those who simply don't want to accept naturalism will always find arguments like "we can't know that was exactly what happened aeons ago" or "so what, let's see you make a cat out of that!".

When you are searching for the truth you must take care not to jump to conclusions. The question of how life arose is very far from the question of how life diversifies. The former is scientifically still in its infancy, whereas the latter belongs to the strongest fundamental theories in the whole of science.

Creationism, so far, has not been able to provide any answer outside the realm of magic, if that satisfies you (which I doubt) then we need not continue the conversation. However, if you are interested in gaining some confidence in evolution then you must tell us what sort of evidence/proof would convince you. Otherwise we'll just be going in circles.

Some remarks:
"Yet evolutionists every day believe that a Breitling watch could pop into existence by dumb luck, given enough time and the right circumstances. "
Of course not, please, I beg you, stop making statements that make you sound like Michael. The only thing evolution is about, is gradual change over time. Spontaneous popping into existence is a no-no!


"People are trusting and believe anything. Look at all the conspiracy theories, and religions, and superstitions around the world."
Exactly, most people can get very delusional, that is precisely why a good education and critical thinking combined with a healthy dose of scepticism go a long way. You are almost there, not much missing.


Finally, here's a very rudimentary yet insightful demonstration of simple replicators

 

[Jose Fly]

Give a source then.

Like I said, you really should study the subject a bit before trying to debate it. You can start HERE.

But at the end of the day it still boils down to you saying life can exist in a simpler form than a cell, which all evidence is to the contrary.

I do believe that parts of a watch could exist outside a watch.
The marvel is in bringing all the elements together, not in just creating some proto-part.

My opinion is that unless you can make by some means, an actual cell membrane, outside the cell, then you have nothing.

Likewise, all life today contains DNA or RNA. Unless you can create and replicate an actual bit of DNA or RNA outside the cell, I feel you have nothing, since that is what all life today contains.

IOW, your approach to this subject is to start off with "I refuse to accept results that contradict my beliefs", and then reflexively deny anything and everything that even appears to go against your beliefs.

Pretty standard for creationists, but not at all useful, which is one reason why creationism hasn't accomplished a single thing in well over a century.

 

[alwight]

Jose and Alwight

We seem to have lost the plot.

I used the analogy of a watch, where a whole lot of things have to be in place for life to exist.

I ASSUMED that when talking about life we were all on the same page, that life does not [here on earth] come simpler than a single cell.

So I thought we were haggling about what the simplest life looks like, that could exist and procreate itself.

Then you felt I was heading to irreducible complexity of life - which probably is where I was going to take my stand by comparing this simplest form of life to a watch by examining the odds of it all coming together.

If you don't think that the cell is the simplest form of self-perpetuating life, then you have created your own new field of biology - "not-quite-bio-logy".

Evolution doesn't care about your definition of "life" it applies to anything that can evolve. Crystals evolve but I don't intend to call it "life".
Why don't you just admit it, that you don't want a natural answer to spoil your preferred miraculous creation?

 

[iouae]

Dear Iouae,

I hope you've received my latest reply.

I think we all here agree that life forms how we know them today are to a varying degree ultimately "irreducibly complex". Now how long it's going to take before science can "create" life in the lab does not matter. Those who simply don't want to accept naturalism will always find arguments like "we can't know that was exactly what happened aeons ago" or "so what, let's see you make a cat out of that!".

When you are searching for the truth you must take care not to jump to conclusions. The question of how life arose is very far from the question of how life diversifies. The former is scientifically still in its infancy, whereas the latter belongs to the strongest fundamental theories in the whole of science.

Creationism, so far, has not been able to provide any answer outside the realm of magic, if that satisfies you (which I doubt) then we need not continue the conversation. However, if you are interested in gaining some confidence in evolution then you must tell us what sort of evidence/proof would convince you. Otherwise we'll just be going in circles.

Some remarks:
"Yet evolutionists every day believe that a Breitling watch could pop into existence by dumb luck, given enough time and the right circumstances. "
Of course not, please, I beg you, stop making statements that make you sound like Michael. The only thing evolution is about, is gradual change over time. Spontaneous popping into existence is a no-no!


"People are trusting and believe anything. Look at all the conspiracy theories, and religions, and superstitions around the world."
Exactly, most people can get very delusional, that is precisely why a good education and critical thinking combined with a healthy dose of scepticism go a long way. You are almost there, not much missing.


Finally, here's a very rudimentary yet insightful demonstration of simple replicators

Hi Duke

I watched that interesting video "The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis - Dr. Jack Szostak".

Here is the problem. We are talking about life on earth and we are talking about a Breitling watch. Not something which parodies life on earth or parodies a Breitling watch.

If one does not throw the exact Breitling watch parts together, one will never get that watch. The only life we know about is that on earth with REAL DNA and REAL cell membranes, and these do require energy to power them, unlike the video of hypothetical "similar" organelles.

I could grow copper sulphate crystals in soapy copper sulphate solution and say "look, its growing, and has a bubble around it so here is a simple cell" - but it has no bearing on reality, and really is just a show-and-tell trick to fool Grade 3 students that we have created a growing cell.

If life evolved then I don't see why the simplest life forms would not be around today. Bacteria seem to have continued from the Cambrian.

A Google search for simplest bacteria yields "Mycoplasma genitalium has one of the smallest genomes of any free-living organism in the world, clocking in at a mere 525 genes. That's a fraction of the size of even another bacterium like E. coli, which has 4,288 genes."

I don't think we can get away from life being "irreducibly complex". Thanks Duke, I learned that term from you though I had the concept in my mind.

We have not even got to how life diversifies.

You mentioned "However, if you are interested in gaining some confidence in evolution then you must tell us what sort of evidence/proof would convince you. Otherwise we'll just be going in circles." I have a degree in botany, zoology and biochemistry, so its not like I am seeing this for the first time.

The evidence or proof which would start to convince me would be to show me how all the parts of the unit of life could come together.

The scary part about life is that you can have all the elements together, and the cell is still dead. I think one needs to start by resurrecting a dead cell. Even that is hard, and here we have all the bits of the watch assembled, and "all" we have to fix is the winding mechanism. I am under no illusion. Everything about the cell is complicated. Do we have a clue for instance how a brain cell stores memories?

 

[noguru]

So turning non-fermented water into wine is not magic? What about a bunch of fish appearing from nowhere? Just like the bunny out of a hat?

Apologetics aside, there is no difference, really.

Ding, ding, ding!

What does he win Johnny!

 

[Yorzhik]

Stop being cheeky and/or stupid

I will repeat with emphasis now what I was asking a citation for:
"ALL communication is encode->transmission->decode in order to accomplish something"

All Shannon information modelling of encode->transmission->decode is of communication but that does not mean all communication is Shannon modelling of encode->transmission->decode (unless you can show otherwise - which given its known variable usage I doubt you can). Anymore than all chickens hatch from eggs but not eggs hatch chickens.

Citation needed. That is how Shannon information models communication but it does not mean Shannon information models all communication (unless you are using a narrow definition of communication I doubt anyone else uses)

Yes, we are talking about communication in the context of Shannon. It's something you can assume for the rest of the conversation even if I don't always list it as the context. In fact, if I'm not talking in the context of Shannon I'll be sure to note it.

So is DNA is the encoded transmission and proteins are the decoded message..... what is it encoded from? DNA is self replicated therefore seemingly in infinite transmission.... Or is DNA encoded to itself?.... It's not encoded from proteins.... none of these seem to fit with Shannon's encode->transmission->decode model.

I'll repeat a previous question - when is the encoding, transmission and decoding occurring? Can you name the life cycle or process/es occurring?

So in the example here you are saying that DNA isn't the transmission? Since the data is encoded from DNA then transmitted to the ribosome (via mRNA) and then decoded by the ribosome into a protein.

This is meant to clear up your claim of DNA being in transmission how?

(Note this is NOT an example of mutation, I hope that was a redundant statement but you have a penchant for misunderstanding/quote mining. On the plus side you get extra points for actually naming a biological process that has some sort of definable start (encoding) and end (decoding) point with communication over a distance, so a good start on trying to use Shannon information, I'm not sure how useful it is but good start! A pity it doesn't help your case about mutations though...)

We'll get to mutations. But this example is easier to understand. So just to double check, you understand that DNA is an encoded message that gets transmitted and decoded to form a protein? That if the DNA is correct, and the protein turns out wrong, then noise entered the system somewhere between the time the DNA was transmitted and the protein was made?

Don't read too much into my questions. They aren't trick questions and they really are as obvious as they appear. And I'm not leading you down a poison path, my conclusion will be as simple as this example.

 

[DavisBJ]

The three assumptions I mentioned are correct.

Certainly the first two of your assumptions are correct, in the same sense that 2 + 2 = 4 is correct. Walk into a lab that specializes in radiological dating of rocks and say to them, “Hey, I hope you guys realize that the initial ratios of parent to daughter decay products has to be known for your answers to be valid.” They will pick a volume off of their book shelf, blow a thick layer of dust off it, and hand it to you. The Title: “Radiological Dating for Dummies (or creationist audiences)”. You will find your second assumption discussed in some detail on page … uh… page ... page 2. The laboratory personnel will invite you back for a tour when you reach Junior High level studies.

All scientists (geologists) get their PhD being taught that the earth is billions of years old and that radiometric dating is accurate. You wont get through university if you don't understand it.

I took both geology and physics in college. Not only was I taught the earth was old, but a considerable part of the studies involved the specific studies and research that led to the old earth dates.

However..... thousands of scientists (geologists, biologists, geneticists, adtrono.ers(sic) etc) are saying the evidence supports thousands of years...definetly(sic) not billions.

You are aware that if you really want to tally the number of qualified players on each side of this question, you are going to lose, badly. But more relevant is why the divergence within the scientific community? Several times previously in this thread I have made a claim about this, and this is a fine example. Carefully tally up all of the scientists who say “young earth”, and then do likewise with the old earth scientists. Is there any identifiable factor that would give one side or the other a strong bias? On my old earth side, I have standing with me thousands who come from almost every civilized country, from every major religion, from wildly differing cultures. Their common focus is on understanding what science shows. I am confident on your side I could document a huge percentage who vow primary allegiance to an ancient nomadic creation story, the same allegiance you openly proclaim. In numerous ways science and that nomadic tale clash, but the scientists on my side don’t demand that it be read as an accurate scientific account. But yours do. Which side will be best practicing science free of outside biases?

Im sure you are aware of RATE.... a team of 8 PhD scientists who spent a couple years studying radiometric dating results. Their study shows that the consensus view of radiometric dating is flawed. The technical report can be obtained but here is a laymans report.

Yes, we have discussed it before. Rate was completed about a decade ago. In the decade since it finished, there has been a vast number of ongoing studies that have been published. How many of those have found that the Rate project added knowledge to the world of geological dating that was significant enough to be referenced in the technical citations? Is this another Duane Gish – when he (or Rate) shuts up and the din dies down, their influence on the world of science turns out to likewise be no more than a fading whisper. Rate was a terrible waste of what could have been real scientific talent.