Are we still evolving? Cool new video for the doubters of evolution.


Recommended Posts

jebus197

so what your saying is that, the building block of life,RNA, which is very complex, somehow created accidentally (that must be flawlessly) , over millions of years. well, for argument sake il go along. even though basic human logic is against it.( i.e something out of nothing.)

but what about the process itself, that created the rna, where did he came from? what started it, what make it so, what gave it the ability to create life?

again, we are going back to where we started.

It's not 'something out of nothing'. There isn't a scientist or biologist that claims that it was. The short answer is to read a book. Try reading the 'The Blind Watchmaker, or 'Climbing Mount Improbable' by Richard Dawkins, or anything substantial by Stephen J Gould written in the last 20 years and as I said, then come back and comment. Commenting on something about which it is clear to almost everyone that you know absolutely nothing, is only succeeding in making you appear rather dim.

You keep going on about RNA, but I would be willing to bet that you probably don't even know what RNA is, or how it functions. (Beyond looking it up on Wikipedia and posting it here.) I suggest you learn about the things you say can't possibly happen before deciding if they can happen or not.

The answer in any case about how the thing that made RNA came into being is was just chemistry. That's it. That's all. No Hokus Pokus, or magic involved. Just millions upon millions of years of complex chemistry. We can even see large parts of that chemistry taking place in the geological record before life even began. Before DNA and before RNA, there were some basic chemical processes, which themselves had developed over a very long time the ability to self-organised and to replicate. We have many clues even now as to how this could have occurred.

Link to post
Share on other sites
R1pper

guys, i never claimed to have answers. i have questions, that derives from ignorance on the subject, i'm not a shame to admit.

also i didnt determined anything, i asked question from logic POV, that's it.

il search people with fundamental knowledge, and hope they will be willing to tolerate my "uneducated question." :p

anyway, thanks for your time, take care.

Link to post
Share on other sites
jebus197

Just read from respected sources. Books really are a good place to start.

Link to post
Share on other sites
+Xinok

guys, i never claimed to have answers. i have questions, that derives from ignorance on the subject, i'm not a shame to admit.

also i didnt determined anything, i asked question from logic POV, that's it.

il search people with fundamental knowledge, and hope they will be willing to tolerate my "uneducated question." :p

You might want to learn how to phrase your questions better. You came out sounding very biased against evolution in your original statement. So don't be surprised that you would receive a less respectful response.

so what your saying is that, the building block of life,RNA, which is very complex, somehow created accidentally (that must be flawlessly) , over millions of years. well, for argument sake il go along. even though basic human logic is against it.( i.e something out of nothing.)

but what about the process itself, that created the rna, where did he came from? what started it, what make it so, what gave it the ability to create life?

again, we are going back to where we started.


I don't know why there's this assumption that RNA is such a complex molecule. IMO the structure of RNA is not that complex, and is something that can be created by mere chance. As you can see in the image, RNA can be broken down into a few simpler parts: guanine, ribose, and phosphate. Also, if you look closely, these smaller parts are being held together at single points. So making RNA is a matter of synthesizing these individual molecules, then arranging them in the correct way to form RNA.

RNA_chemical_structure.GIF

I think it's also important to understand how much "trial and error" there was in the chemistry on the early earth. First of all, atoms are tiny, and there's more of them than you can possibly imagine. For example, a single dice can be made up of over a quadrillion atoms (1015).

20080808064554_dice_thb50x50.jpg

Multiply that by the entire surface of the earth. Then remember my original point that there were potentially up to six early earth collisions with large celestial bodies (one or two potentially the size of the moon), which heated the earth to thousands of degrees for hundreds to thousands of years and flung debris miles up into the air which basically acted as a giant mixer.

Given all of this, is it really that unlikely that the basic components for life could have formed?

Link to post
Share on other sites
rob.derosa

It's proven. It's not a theory - it's a SCIENTIFIC theory and until people understand that, we'll still have people believing that it's a debatable subject.

Although I agree with your point, just because something is a scientific theory does not make it correct. There have been many scientific theories that have been disproven with further measurements, or a greater understanding of what is actually occurring.

For example, Newtonian physics - I think we would all agree it was a scientific theory - although reasonably accurate, is proven to be wrong on small scales.

Link to post
Share on other sites
nub

I don't think its possible. I am saying I believe the origin of life is too complex to happen by chance.

Now how does that make any sense?

Link to post
Share on other sites
blade1269

Hey,

Just a theory yes, that is all evolution is, no proven fact. (Y)

Link to post
Share on other sites
iamawesomewicked

Hey,

Just a theory yes, that is all evolution is, no proven fact. (Y)

Ahh yes, just like... gravity.. but we don't discredit gravity now do we?

Link to post
Share on other sites
zhangm

Hey,

Just a theory yes, that is all evolution is, no proven fact. (Y)

The only thing this post says is that you have no idea what the word "theory" actually means.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Solid Knight

Just a theory yes, that is all evolution is, no proven fact. (Y)

Is is gravity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Udedenkz

Hey,

Just a theory yes, that is all evolution is, no proven fact. (Y)

So is germ theory,

theory that proposes that microorganisms are the cause of many diseases

You see voodoo doctor/exorcist/priest/use leeches/whatever instead?

Link to post
Share on other sites
leedogg

If god was the force behind the universe, nature and everything, a logical conclusion would be that god created man through evolution. For that matter one could also say that god defined the rules for science/nature and is working within that framework to create/shape everything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
anthdci

Damn video has been deleted. anyone hve a new link?

i dont know if your in the uk but it is available on iPlayer at this link

Link to post
Share on other sites
s1k3sT

If god was the force behind the universe, nature and everything, a logical conclusion would be that god created man through evolution. For that matter one could also say that god defined the rules for science/nature and is working within that framework to create/shape everything.

+1

Yet I have a feeling most of the anti-theists will ignore the truth to your words, and continue denying the possibility of intelligent design while simultaneously denying that they deny the possibility of intelligent design by calling themselves atheists and saying their beliefs aren't related to religion...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Subject Delta

+1

Yet I have a feeling most of the anti-theists will ignore the truth to your words, and continue denying the possibility of intelligent design while simultaneously denying that they deny the possibility of intelligent design by calling themselves atheists and saying their beliefs aren't related to religion...

Because there is no truth to them, it's pure speculation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
jebus197

+1

Yet I have a feeling most of the anti-theists will ignore the truth to your words, and continue denying the possibility of intelligent design while simultaneously denying that they deny the possibility of intelligent design by calling themselves atheists and saying their beliefs aren't related to religion...

You Sir are what is referred to in most informed circles as a 'nutjob', lol.... :D :D :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
s1k3sT

You Sir are what is referred to in most informed circles as a 'nutjob', lol.... :D :D :D

That, sir, is what's referred to in most "informed circles" as an Ad hominem attack; it's childish and undermines anything else you say...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Udedenkz

If god was the force behind the universe, nature and everything, a logical conclusion would be that god created man through evolution. For that matter one could also say that god defined the rules for science/nature and is working within that framework to create/shape everything.

hollow assumption on which the rest of the argument is based.

false - you are making another assumption here: god = theistic god. Much more 'logical' would be to imply deistic god due to the lack of scientific evidence of god's involvement anywhere.

no evidence for this either unless you mean evolution as a byproduct of the universe : god -> universe, universe + time -> abiogenesis -> evolution -> us. Although your next sentence implies a theistic god - which means effect on the physical world which can be measured, proven scientifically; just one problem - it never was.

I suggest pushing your god to fill greater voids, such as maybe the creation of the multiverse followed by non-intervention withing it - or maybe redefine your god as something outside of classical mechanics... >.>

TLDR:

2 assumptions: "If god exists", "theistic god"

No scientific evidence of any theistic involvement.

You need to redefine God, god was not found anywhere you mentioned.

Link to post
Share on other sites
the evn show

If god was the force behind the universe, nature and everything, a logical conclusion would be that god created man through evolution. For that matter one could also say that god defined the rules for science/nature and is working within that framework to create/shape everything.

The issue with this position is that if you're going to allow for an omnipotent and omnipresent universe-creator (a god by any other name?) then why bother with evolution or physics at all: assert anything you like. You can just have that entity spring everything into existence 5 minutes ago?including you, complete with memories?with the appearance that it took a very long time. The position is equally indefensible but unassailable if you accept the premises on which both are built.

Link to post
Share on other sites
jebus197

That, sir, is referred to, in most "informed circles", as an Ad hominem attack; it's childish and undermines anything else you say...

Still worth it though, and accurate. :-P

Pity you didn't watch the video. Unfortunately I can't find a site that won't pull it down as fast as I can put it up. But the good news is that for the curious it can still be had 'from the usual sources', - and from probably the most notorious of all download sites in particular.

I suspect however that the terminally ignorant will probably want to stay ignorant and probably won't go to the effort of watching it. But all I can say is I feel sorry for you. To be ignorant of something you know nothing about and to attempt to argue against it is inexcusable. It only highlights your ignorance more. Learn about it first, make a genuine effort to understand it - and if you still disagree with it, come back and perhaps then we can debate your objections rationally.

Link to post
Share on other sites
s1k3sT

Still worth it though, and accurate. :-P

Pity you didn't watch the video. Unfortunately I can't find a site that won't pull it down as fast as I can put it up. But the good news is that for the curious it can still be had 'from the usual sources', - and from probably the most notorious of all download sites in particular.

I suspect however that the terminally ignorant will probably want to stay ignorant and probably won't go to the effort of watching it. But all I can say is I feel sorry for you. To be ignorant of something you know nothing about is inexcusable. Learn about it first, make a genuine effort to understand it - and then if you disagree with it come back and perhaps then we can debate your objections rationally.

I don't know why you think I haven't watched the video or that I object to something in it; what did I do or say that makes you think that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
threetonesun

My theory is that God existed, was the entirety of the universe, exploded outwards (Big Bang), and parts of him created life. Evolution was a by product of us becoming more like God over time. As someone/thing approaches God's infinite wisdom/space/mass, the cycle will start all over again.

I think that lumps Christianity, Aristotle, Buddhism, and Transcendentalism together in some ways.

Note: I don't believe any of that :laugh: But if you're going to give a god the role of prime mover, there are an infinite number of "logical" conclusions as to how we got where we are today. Also, it would follow, logically, that if it was god's interest to get us started, there would be some end point. You don't put the gears together just to have them spin. But, if he were omnipotent, he would know where that end point is. So why even go through the trouble, unless the process of getting from the beginning to the end was the important part. That said, once you start trying to figure out the rationalization of an omnipotent being, you realize it's no different the the rationalization of nothing/ pure chance, and in the end, it's simpler to just assume god doesn't exist.

Link to post
Share on other sites
jebus197

I don't know why you think I haven't watched the video or that I object to something in it; what did I do or say that makes you think that?

Oh just the whole 'God probably did it anyway' and 'intelligent design' argument you outlined above. (Although I would prefer to call it 'dumb design' because if I was a God, I could think of many better ways to design the Universe - and life in particular.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
leedogg

hollow assumption on which the rest of the argument is based.

false - you are making another assumption here: god = theistic god. Much more 'logical' would be to imply deistic god due to the lack of scientific evidence of god's involvement anywhere.

no evidence for this either unless you mean evolution as a byproduct of the universe : god -> universe, universe + time -> abiogenesis -> evolution -> us. Although your next sentence implies a theistic god - which means effect on the physical world which can be measured, proven scientifically; just one problem - it never was.

I suggest pushing your god to fill greater voids, such as maybe the creation of the multiverse followed by non-intervention withing it - or maybe redefine your god as something outside of classical mechanics... >.>

TLDR:

2 assumptions: "If god exists", "theistic god"

No scientific evidence of any theistic involvement.

You need to redefine God, god was not found anywhere you mentioned.

First off I am athiest, so dont presume that this is "my" god. I'm simply posing a theory for those who believe in god, disbelieve in evolution, etc. I did not state that god existed as fact, I simply stated that IF god existed, why would it be so hard to believe that he created everything in the universe through evolution and the laws of the universe? Especially if he created those laws.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.