What's new
By:

Science vs. Creationism

LogGrad98 said:
Question: can we recreate evolution in a lab? Are the mechanics of evolution well-enough understood that we can reproduce it? Have we created life through evolutionary means? Seriously just curious. I have read about experiments with what we think the early "soup" looked like and then shocked it with fake lightning and were able to jolt together the beginnings of protein structures, but far from something that would then move to the next step and start reproducing. How close are we to being able to recreate life in the laboratory or cause something to evolve artificially (and not by purposefully meddling with genetics, which is more like creative design than evolution).
Click to expand...

Don't let duck screw around with you by describing the mechanisms of Darwinism as "change over time."

Darwin's theory:

1. Life began accidentally with a single celled organism (common ancestor)
2. Random(accidental) mutation of new desirable attributes. (highly implausible)
3. Natural selection weeding out the "less fit" attributes (circular argument)
4. Leads to creation of new species

Basically, "All life and all the attributes of life are an accident."

So the mechanisms are random mutation and natural selection.

Random Mutation: How can you prove it was "random" after the fact? That's why the guy in the debate started out by stating the differences between hard science like physics vs. "historical science" (a nice way of saying pseudoscience)
Natural selection: This is just a circular argument. "By the process of natural selection the "fittest" survived. Who are the "fittest?" The ones who survived! Look it happens every time!"
Plus "natural" and "selection" are extremely versatile in the Darwin doctrine.
 
Still waiting on your response, Pearl.


Oh, and your description of Natural Selection as tautological is laughable at best.
 
dalamon said:
Still waiting on your response, Pearl.
Oh, and your description of Natural Selection as tautological is laughable at best.
Click to expand...

As you wish:

dalamon said:
I think you underestimate the time scale. We see rapid evolution in things like viral genomics within mere months, or years. Complete alterations of capsid structure, etc.
I think this is a better question: to what extent do you believe in evolutionary mechanics? Do you think that mutations aren't inheritable, and that every species is static? Or do you merely think that every species can evolve only to a certain extent? How do you reconcile all of this evolutionary evidence provided to you?
So you don't think that you can make new species via evolution? Is that your point?
Quit polarizing the discourse. This isn't Darwinists vs those who are religious. I'm religious myself-- probably just as religious as yourself, in fact.
Click to expand...

If rapidly mutating viruses were proof of "evolution" then after 3 billion years of nonstop evolution, the only life forms we would have on Earth would be extremely sturdy viruses.
Humans can build up tolerances for alcohol but no one imagines a high tolerance for alcohol will lead to a new organ, like a pair of wings. Several of our fellow forum members would have earned their wings by now, eh?
I think the discourse is already polarized in the title science vs. creationism. It is really more like origin of life doctrine vs. origin of life doctrine.
I simply use "Darwinist" as a person who defends Darwin's doctrine.
I don't know how we would determine degree of "religiosity" anyway.
 
Darkwing Duck said:
Yes, discuss things with me, someone who can speak about the issue, or you, an internet troll. Nice argument.
Click to expand...

Log asked about the ability to reproduce the mechanisms of evolution, and you come back with this:

"Evolution defined is the change in gene frequencies in a population over time."

"Document the gene frequencies of any population. Wait 'til the next generation, document the gene frequencies. The change is evolution."

That's like him asking if we can reproduce the mechanisms involved in building a freeway and you coming back with:

A freeway is defined as a change in lane frequencies in a city over time.

Just document the # of lanes in city and wait ten years and document the # of lanes again. That change is freeway building!

It's an amazing scientific process you God-believing dumdums.

If you are an example of "someone who can speak about the issue," Logs in bad shape.
 
Last edited:
@ pearl.... I don't think Darwin used the word accidental in his book " The Origin of Species". You think by just throwing that word around helps your argument, but it only shows you know little about how the scientific world views mutations!!!

Also how did lungs evolve???

Scientist have seen evidence that swim bladders if fish used to control buoyancy, were modified through genetic mutations as a more efficient form of gas exchange especially with the abundance of Oxygen at the surface of the ocean!!

Also isn't it amazing that a single Zygote can multiply into hundreds of thousands of cells, each cell differentiating into a specific cell or group of cells that make up a complicated living system. Developmental Biologist have mapped out most of the pathways which differentiate these cells and the amazing thing is that certain genes that control the development of the head of a fly also develop the head of a mouse, but geneticist have mapped out where the mutations are that makes these two organism different!!!
 
@ log...

So many scientist studying biogenesis believe that RNA plays the big role of going from a pseudo cell with all the right components to an actual reproducing and living organism.

I know there are a handful of universities working on this right now!! Penn State I believe is one of them. In living systems now RNA is know to act as an enzyme, structure and store info!!!
 
The main difference between DNA and RNA is the sugar present in the molecules. While the sugar present in an RNA molecule is ribose, the sugar present in a molecule of DNA is deoxyribose. Deoxyribose is the same as ribose, except that the former has one more OH.

DNA or RNA? No matter the difference the fact remains that the complexity of both rule out blind evolution or evolution of ANY kind!
 
carolinajazz said:
The main difference between DNA and RNA is the sugar present in the molecules. While the sugar present in an RNA molecule is ribose, the sugar present in a molecule of DNA is deoxyribose. Deoxyribose is the same as ribose, except that the former has one more OH.

DNA or RNA? No matter the difference the fact remains that the complexity of both rule out blind evolution or evolution of ANY kind!
Click to expand...

I would say a larger difference is that RNA is single-stranded, and DNA is double-stranded.

Complexity would be the expected result of a blind process.
 
LogGrad98 said:
How about abiogenesis then?
Click to expand...

There is no standard model or reliable theory for how it happened; it may have happened more than once, in different ways.

In the lab, we're getting closer. We have created an entire genome from scratch, and put it into a cell.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science...ratory-sparking-debate-about-playing-god.html
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/sciences-greatest-unsolved-mysteries-creating-life#slide-4

I don't know if we will ever whip up an entire cell from scratch, when cells are already plentiful. I don't see why it would be undoable.
 
Zulu said:
@ pearl.... I don't think Darwin used the word accidental in his book " The Origin of Species". You think by just throwing that word around helps your argument, but it only shows you know little about how the scientific world views mutations!!!

Also how did lungs evolve???

Scientist have seen evidence that swim bladders if fish used to control buoyancy, were modified through genetic mutations as a more efficient form of gas exchange especially with the abundance of Oxygen at the surface of the ocean!!

Also isn't it amazing that a single Zygote can multiply into hundreds of thousands of cells, each cell differentiating into a specific cell or group of cells that make up a complicated living system. Developmental Biologist have mapped out most of the pathways which differentiate these cells and the amazing thing is that certain genes that control the development of the head of a fly also develop the head of a mouse, but geneticist have mapped out where the mutations are that makes these two organism different!!!
Click to expand...

I'm sure Darwin is rolling in grave over my replacing random with accident. I'm sure you Origin of Species thumpers will get rewarded for defending the faith when you die and go off to the place the "fittest" go when they have no longer survived.

The better question. Did lungs evolve? Only if you assume humans evolved from fish would you worry about looking for a way for the fish bladder to turn into lungs.

Only if you assume that a fly mutated its way into a mouse, or the head producing gene was passed down from a common mousefly-like ancestor, would you call differences in their genetic code a "mutation." Just because they both have a head doesn't mean that a mouse and a fly are related, especially since they are completely different creatures.

Yes the ability for cells to differentiate is AMAZING! What's even more AMAZING is that Darwinists believe these AMAZING abilities arose at random (by accident) and insist their belief is science.
 
One Brow said:
Complexity would be the expected result of a blind process.
Click to expand...

...so your saying that if you take a box and put all the components of a Casio Data Bank watch in it.....shake it up a couple thousand times....you end up with a watch that will have 78 different functions working perfectly....79....if you want to know what time it is?
 
carolinajazz said:
...so your saying that if you take a box and put all the components of a Casio Data Bank watch in it.....shake it up a couple thousand times....you end up with a watch that will have 78 different functions working perfectly....79....if you want to know what time it is?
Click to expand...

YES!!!!!!

The broken watch fallacy!



Haven't seen that one in nearly a long enough time.
 
Darkwing Duck said:
YES!!!!!!

The broken watch fallacy!



Haven't seen that one in nearly a long enough time.
Click to expand...

...oh, the watch isn't broken! In fact, all the parts are in perfect running order! They're just not "assembled" yet.

But your saying that something way more complex than a watch came into existence and then continued to develop in such a way that resulted in all the living things we observe on earth today? So to satisfy your desire to move from "simple" to "complex" I give you this illustration:

When confronted with the astronomical odds against a living cell forming by chance, some evolutionists feel forced to back away. For example, the authors of Evolution From Space (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe) give up, saying: “These issues are too complex to set numbers to.” They add: “There is no way .*.*. in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible a year or two ago. The numbers we calculated above are essentially just as unfaceable for a universal soup as for a terrestrial one.”

Hence, after acknowledging that intelligence must somehow have been involved in bringing life into existence, the authors continue: “Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.”

Thus an observer might conclude that a “psychological” barrier is the only plausible explanation as to why most evolutionists cling to a chance origin for life and reject any “design or purpose or directedness,” as Dawkins expressed it.

Indeed, even Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, after acknowledging the need for intelligence, say that they do not believe a personal Creator is responsible for the origin of life. In their thinking, intelligence is mandatory, but a Creator is unacceptable. Do you find that contradictory?

....is that complex enough for ya?
 
carolinajazz said:
...so your saying that if you take a box and put all the components of a Casio Data Bank watch in it.....shake it up a couple thousand times....you end up with a watch that will have 78 different functions working perfectly....79....if you want to know what time it is?
Click to expand...

As long as you start with material for a million watches and can apply a selection process between every shake, yes, it can happen.
 
carolinajazz said:
When confronted with the astronomical odds against a living cell forming by chance, some evolutionists feel forced to back away. For example, the authors of Evolution From Space (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe) give up, saying: “These issues are too complex to set numbers to.”
Click to expand...

You can't set probabilities until you can establish dependence factors among all the different, contributing causes. Can you tell me how much dependence there is between kin selection and genetic drift, for example?

The whole thing is so very complex, just like you would expect is there was no design.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top