February 2, 1809. Both Lincoln and Darwin were born. Who was the greater emancipator?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ShellyT @ Jul 31 2007, 03:15 PM) [snapback]488339[/snapback]</div>

Sorry this took so long but I was waiting for a reply from a true believer. I guess to understand why chemistry is important you have to ask the question "How did life being?" something the evolutionist have not been able to answer. For my part I don’t believe in (macro) evolution so if you believe in evolution I don’t think any of my answers will provide much comfort. But the claim by evolutionist is that life came from chemicals. I really thought one of the faithful on this board would step up and help with an explanation but perhaps their faith has been shaken? Here is an interesting read . . .

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articl...view&ID=105

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Aug 3 2007, 09:12 PM) [snapback]490289[/snapback]</div>

Well, life is chemical so it must have started out as chemical. It is actually a misconception that there is no explanation as to how life could have begun from simple chemical. Actually there is a multitude of possible ways that the building blocks of life could have spontaneously arranged themselves into a crude self-replicating molecule. What we don't have is any record of how it actually happen.

Some existing small RNA sequences have enzymatic activity that could be used for replication. Once that was characterized it is no large step to understand that a self-replicating RNA sequence could have formed spontaneously. You only need one instance of this event to have quick replication of genetic material and thus evolution.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Aug 3 2007, 07:23 PM) [snapback]490294[/snapback]</div>

Wow that was quick! [Edited to remove some less than polite remarks.]
A few of the numerous problems with Alric’s scenario as found here. . .

No plausible prebiotic synthesis of cytosine yet exists.

Vital ‘building blocks’ including cytosine and ribose are too unstable to have existed on a hypothetical prebiotic earth for long.

Even if cytosine and ribose could have existed, there is no known prebiotic way to combine them to form the nucleoside cytidine, even if we granted unacceptably high levels of investigator interference.

Building blocks would be too dilute to actually build anything, and would be subject to cross-reactions.

Even if the building blocks could have formed polymers, the polymers would readily hydrolyse.

There is no tendency to form the high-information polymers required for life as opposed to random ones.

Wildkow

p.s. As the non-creationist information theorist Hubert Yockey observed . . . (and he has not revised his opinion since):

‘Research on the origin of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion has already been authoritatively accepted … .
What remains to be done is to find the scenarios which describe the detailed mechanisms and processes by which this happened.
One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom
a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact
and not faith has not yet been written.’

Yockey, H.P., A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory, J. Theor. Biol. 67:377–398, 1977; quotes from pp. 379, 396.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Aug 3 2007, 09:48 PM) [snapback]490316[/snapback]</div>

Add "within a human lifespan" to each of your sentences to make them true. Those statements are maybe true within human laboratory conditions and lifespans. Consider 1 billion years and geologic extremes for just the single event we need and suddenly it all becomes more plausible.

You are using the commonly creationist tactic of falsifying by ignorance. "We don't know how X could have happened so X must not be true". However, scientists use the following reasoning "although we don't know how X happened yet, it is still the most reasonable explanation". No need for God or aliens until we find out otherwise. Invariably, X, a modification of X, or even Y turned out to be true. So far God or aliens have not been needed to explain anything.

Wow. Its creepy how close I was to the NAS statement!

 

The question about chemistry is because I found that list of text books dishonest. The breadth and depth of human knowledge in the fields of science is vast. A single book cannot cover it all, and the lack of coverage of a topic does not make that topic unimportant or invalid. I would be surprised to find evolution mentioned in a book titled, Fundamentals of Chemistry. I'd expect to find info on atoms, the elements, electron orbits, reaction energy, oxidation and reduction, acids and bases, pH, basic chemical formulas, etc. If I paid the likely $200 for the book, I'd be upset to find them wasting page space on evolution.

Jesus not being mentioned in Genesis does not make him unimportant. That's also true of subjects in science. Hand picking some college textbooks and looking for a mentioning of evolution is no way of judging its importance. The sciences are divided and classified to facilitate the learning and understanding of all that knowledge. Understanding some of those subjects doesn't always require a knowledge of another. Toyota engineers didn't need to know the Kreb cycle to get the HSD working.

Science isn't learned in a vaccuum, and there is a basic order in learning the topics. A student is not likely to take biochem without first taking chemistry and biologly. Higher level courses assume you learned some principles in earlier courses. The point of continuing education is to learn new stuff.

Unto another subject.
The Theroy of Evolution is independent of abiogenesis. It explains how lifeforms diverged and expanded upon the face of the planet. Not how life came to be in first place. Those first primitive life forms may have spontaneously appeared, drifted in from space, or placed there by God. Evolution doesn't care. It just explains how things are after the ball started rolling.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Jul 28 2007, 07:11 PM) [snapback]486811[/snapback]</div>

Agreed. What I'm arguing about are the ramifications of Darwin's theories, not their truth or falsehood. You may have noticed: this thread is not titled "[Insert name here] or Darwin--who was the greater elucidator of truth?" but rather focused on the "emancipatory" ramifications of the theory. I'm just hastening to add the eugenic and exterminatory ramifications.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Jul 28 2007, 07:11 PM) [snapback]486811[/snapback]</div>

Oh, OK. Like Marxism is an innocent economic theory, and Leninism is about violently deposing and murdering the Russian monarchy. Or like germ theory and surgical antisepsis have nothing to do with one another. Seriously, were you a member of the Clinton legal defense team?

So, even though the Origin and the Descent both contain eugenic arguments, muted and oblique though they may be, and even though every luminary of nineteenth and twentieth century eugenics, from Galton in England to Haeckel in Germany and Sanger right here in the good ol' US-of-A rooted their arguments in Darwin's biological theories, are you really sustaining that "Darwinism" is an innocent, descriptive biological theory that was just mindin' its own bidness when some dude it never seen before jacked it one and carried it off kicking and screaming to assist in waging war against the weak, sick, simple, and vulnerable?

I guess it all depends on what the meaning of "is" is...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ethereal @ Aug 5 2007, 03:29 PM) [snapback]490949[/snapback]</div>

Exactly.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Aug 5 2007, 04:34 PM) [snapback]490953[/snapback]</div>

I guess I'll take that as a "yes" to having been on the Clinton legal defense team. Now stop insulting our intelligence and go dissemble somewhere else.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ethereal @ Aug 5 2007, 03:44 PM) [snapback]490955[/snapback]</div>

I'll indulge you for a minute and ask you. Are you suggesting the theory of evolution should not have been researched and published?

 

Scary, but that seems to be exactly what Kow and ethereal seem to be suggesting.

 

Amazing, not only did the Greeks know that the earth was round, but they also knew the theroy of evolution. How else would Plato come up with, "The best men must have intercourse with the best women as frequently as possible, and the opposite is true of the very inferior."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ethereal @ Jul 28 2007, 05:03 PM) [snapback]486803[/snapback]</div>

I think it entirely likely that, in the abscence of Darwinism, the Nazis would have found some other suitable theory and adapted it. This has happened throughout the history of science. An excellent source on this is Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man. It's full of examples of how science was used as a rational basis for oppressing others both pre and post Darwin. From craniology to natural selection to the "Bell Curve," people will always find a reason to justify their own racism as rationality.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ShellyT @ Aug 3 2007, 10:09 PM) [snapback]490398[/snapback]</div>

Au contraire my dear lady the ‘Theory of Evolution’ is not independent of abiogenesis now more precisely known as spontaneous generation. It is tied quite firmly to the concept. How convenient for evolutionary scientist that they have declared Evolution and the beginning of life independent. That's like saying to an arson investigator that the how, why and where the fire started isn't important but rather the method it spread is most important.

Wildkow

 

"That's like saying to an arson investigator that the how, why and where the fire started isn't important but rather the method it spread is most important."

You're wrong. We study evolution to understand how biology and ecology works today, not so we can answer the unanswerable question of why and how it started.

That's like saying an astronomer is only interested in what started the universe (IE: big bang). Astronomers study all aspects of the universe, and the fact that all galaxies are spreading apart from each other is an underlying truth, which may or may not be a result of the "big bang".

Well, biologists study nature, and evolution is an underlying aspect of it to understand how things have become they way they are. Whether they started from simple chemicals or a "magic hand" is irrelevant.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Aug 6 2007, 04:14 PM) [snapback]491462[/snapback]</div>

Until God spoke the Word, and brought life into being, there was no life on the world. God willed life from nothing. Which is what abiogenesis is at its most basic, the start of life from where there was none. Life needs to start for evolution to take place. Knowing the how and why of life starting isn't going to change how evolution works. It was once thought that light was carried through a substance known has the ether. What the error was realized, and more accurate theroys developed, plants didn't have redo the process of photosynthesis.

A fire investigator can't determine how the fire started, but he can say the fire spread quicker do to code violations. If the knowing the spread is dependent on knowing the start, then charges can't be brought against the contractor.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Aug 6 2007, 10:54 AM) [snapback]491222[/snapback]</div>

Hmmm, I've pondered on this thread since it began.
“Scaryâ€
Quite the word. (but less inflammatory and more subtle than douchebag) The Hindus, the I believe in Nothings, the Christians, the Muslims, the Evolutionists even the Karl Sagan ufo folks… all bandy it about, in the following manner:

You believe what?!? Eeauu … scary. It’s how, in essence we say, “my way is rightâ€. Recently I watched a video:

http://www.illustramedia.com/umolinfo.htm

I hated science / religion / evolution teaching in high school. But from this, I got an entirely different thought. Beyond the actual material (which was extremely fascinating), my intrigue goes something like this. During the days of the Scopes Monkey Trial, Darwinists were mocked … just like when you talk about evolution to a Muslim, or Islam to a Christian, etc. Seems like our society has come full circle. Lately, I’m reading quite a bit of stuff from a lot of intelligent scientists, physicists, geologists, etc. It no longer ‘bothers’ me, like it used to.

When scientists much smarter than I make “findings†that lead them to intelligent design, and they desire to debate their ideas in public forums, the scientists that are Darwinists often won’t show up. Instead, insults are hurled at the creation scientists, in essence branding those with different views as idiots. Of course, each side’s proponents DOES have its share of idiots, and rather than enter into respectful debate, the groups flaunt each other’s idiots at each other.

That’s what the religionists of decades ago did, and said about Darwinists, and that’s what many religionists do and say when religionists of another sect scrutinize their own particular view. It seems like our modern society has come full circle. Lastly, what’s most bothersome to non-creationists seems to be that if intelligent design WERE true (and ostensibly, why many Darwinists don’t want to enter into a debate about why, for example, one celled Bacterial Flagellum can’t evolve numerous molecular machines to perform their functions), that the ‘designer’ may hold them accountable for their life … just like many religionists believe.

Edit: Guess I should of said, "scary other people's scary scary belief" ... to be fair.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hill @ Oct 20 2007, 06:51 PM) [snapback]528298[/snapback]</div>

Mechanisms for the evolution of the bacterial flagellum have been investigated. Turns out many the components of the bacterial flagellum are very similar to other individual proteins within bacteria. The flagellum has an interesting arrangement but it appears nothing was created or designed. Basically pre-existing parts assembled together over evolutionary time.

The problem with intelligent design is that there is no data for it and doesn't explain anything. Scientists love to debate. But scientific debates are based precisely on everything that intelligent design lacks.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Oct 20 2007, 11:46 PM) [snapback]528342[/snapback]</div>

The pre-existing part in this instance would be molecular motors, props, and prop shafts on these organisims. Evolution of these molecular machines requires each molecular machine to benefit the pre existing life form. Say for example the molecular motor 'forms' first. Without the other mechanical/molecular components, evolution requires the feature to evolve away because it would have no benifit to the celular organism. Unless the 'miricle' here, was that all of the molecular machines evolved simultaneously. Then there are the issues of the 'pre-existing parts' ... these molecular machines. Where are they pre-existing? Doesn't evolution teach that every building block has a beginning? I'm seeing no more or less 'faith' or 'problems' in one philosophy or the other.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hill @ Oct 21 2007, 08:42 AM) [snapback]528425[/snapback]</div>

My bad as I should have said: pre-existing homologues with other functions. Basically, as has been documented in other systems, the proteins that compose the bacterial flagellum have homologues with other functions within bacteria.

For example an important component of the flagellum is the proton channel that uses a proton gradient to generate force. A homologue and more ancestral protein is the proton channel that uses a proton gradient to generate ATP or secrete molecules. We share homologues of this protein with bacteria.

I really like this image:





When "read" from left to right you can see the addition of components from simple pores to secretion and adhesion systems. What I find most beautiful is how the components of the flagellar system have retained the position of the molecules within the bacterial membrane. This is what I call a "fossil by physical constrain".


The whole explanation protein by protein is here:

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html

With references to peer-reviewed journals at the end..of course.