I need you to attack this argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-11-2013, 09:37 PM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(01-11-2013 02:42 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  So abiogenesis probably did happen many times over the course of millions of years, but even a 5 million year chunk of time is relatively small on our planet's lifetime. However they may have all resulted in very similar (if not identical) forms. There may be only one self replicating form that could have been created out of the available materials and conditions, and thus all abiogenetic events would have produced similar outcomes. Until enough had been created or proliferated until they reached a critical mass and were able to really start diversifying, competing, and affecting their own environment. If I remember correctly, it's thought that the earliest and simplest life did a lot of horizontal gene swapping, and there was no real differentiation or sexual reproduction.


I guess I don't get caught up on only having one abiogenetic event, or having many. I can see both as potential explanations. I think multiple occurrences as being more likely, and I don't see multiple occurrences as being any hindrance to our current understanding and models.

There are two models the first is the Tree of Life which basically claims all life on earth descends from a common ancestor. The other is the Ring of Life, which is what you are describing by horizontal gene swapping. Essentially the ring of life model claims there were many lineages of life initially, but because of horizontal gene swapping all those individual lineages merged into one.

Ring of life takes care of the problem of abiogenesis apparently happening only once, but it has some problems. One problem is that if abiogenesis happened multiple times on this planet, its unlikely that every lineage of life would utilize the same 4 necleobases. Horizontal gene transfer only works when the two organisms share the same necleobases.

Insults From Thinkingatheists forgiven 149
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2013, 06:58 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(01-11-2013 09:37 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  There are two models the first is the Tree of Life which basically claims all life on earth descends from a common ancestor. The other is the Ring of Life, which is what you are describing by horizontal gene swapping. Essentially the ring of life model claims there were many lineages of life initially, but because of horizontal gene swapping all those individual lineages merged into one.

Ring of life takes care of the problem of abiogenesis apparently happening only once, but it has some problems. One problem is that if abiogenesis happened multiple times on this planet, its unlikely that every lineage of life would utilize the same 4 necleobases. Horizontal gene transfer only works when the two organisms share the same necleobases.

At this point, we're not even talking evolution, we're talking organic chemistry. Up front I'll say that this is by no means my strong suite. So much as a posited earlier, the 4 nucleotide basis that we have might just be the only 4 that were conducive to life, or the only 4 that could have been produced under those particular conditions. Regardless we are aware of no other life operating with any other set of nucleotides, so even if other configurations existed natural selection apparently didn't favor them. This is all conjecture, we'd probably need a trained organic chemist to tell us if I'm really out in left field or not. I should ask my best friend, he's a bio-chem major at Penn State. Consider

Also, those two models are not mutually exclusive as I understand them. There could have been horizontal gene swapping between the first prokaryotic cells, making evolution and natural selection work under slightly different condition than they operate under now. Once we got to eukaryotic cells, there may very well have been one lineage that all eukaryotic life can trace itself back to. The move from prokaryotic to eukaryotic is just as important to advanced life as abiogenesis was itself. Exactly how separate cells came together and formed symbiotic relationships and bonded so closely as to both be replicated through cell division? We're not sure, but eukaryotic cells were a huge step forward for life on our planet.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2013, 11:14 PM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
Bucky Ball, I see that this is a necro'ed thread, but I have to say that I am just basking in the glow of the awesomeness of your responses here. Well done.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2013, 06:45 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(05-08-2013 09:06 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  Given the incredible number of factors necessary for life to exist, if any single one proved impossible to come about randomly, it would necessitate the existence of an eternal, intelligent force.

This isn't about whether or not such a factor exists, it's about the argument itself. Is it solid?

No, it's not solid. It assumes there are only two possibilities. It's rooted in the assumption that God exists, and that anything that runs contrary to that is wrong and must be disproved. This leads the theist to think that if they can disprove that dissenting point of view that it would automatically lead to the conclusion that God is real. This is obviously not the case. It's based on an underlying assumption of God of the Gaps. The idea is that if we don't have some other answer, then the answer must be God.

Remember, when a theist wants a very specific answer about something scientific, "I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer, and stating it doesn't logically lead to the Christian God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit existing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
19-11-2013, 03:07 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
mmm, interesting thread people. just a couple of things though. at this stage I can't see how they human eye can evolve. Take away one element of it and it couldn't function as an eye. even if the eye did evolve completely but the brain didn't know how to do the rapid micro eye movements, the photosensitive cells would stabilize almost instantly and the eye wouldn't work. The fact that the eye has evolved several times does not prove that the eye can easily evolve it just means that evolution had to pull off this fluke several times making it all the more unlikely. This is only one of countless examples creationists use of irreducible complexity. I appreciated the deck of cards example. The only problem is a single celled organism is incredibly more complex than a deck of cards. Its a bit like a city that can move around and duplicate itself. Any less complex and it can't exist as a living organism. It would simply break down into its base elements again. Now what I can't see is How you go from amino acid molecules, which are just building blocks, to a functioning cell. The only mechanism to do this is found in a living cell that has the information in the DNA (ridiculously complicated molecules) to instruct the cell what to make out of what and where to put it. I understand that given enough time unlikely things can happen but when does unlikely become impossible? you see given enough time random selection can produce and ordered sequence such as pulling a ace of spades out of a pack of cards repeatedly 1000 times it is possible given enough time, but DNA isn't random order. It's information, blueprints and instructions. and information, as far as I'm aware only comes from intelligence. Saying that life on earth was seeded from another planet only puts the same problem somewhere else. it doesn't solve it. if there is life on another planet it's just as likely to have originated here and seeded the other planet. Since Earth appears to be unique this is most likely the case. Thanks for your thread guys
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2013, 03:26 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(19-11-2013 03:07 AM)In search of truth Wrote:  mmm, interesting thread people. just a couple of things though. at this stage I can't see how they human eye can evolve. Take away one element of it and it couldn't function as an eye. even if the eye did evolve completely but the brain didn't know how to do the rapid micro eye movements, the photosensitive cells would stabilize almost instantly and the eye wouldn't work. The fact that the eye has evolved several times does not prove that the eye can easily evolve it just means that evolution had to pull off this fluke several times making it all the more unlikely. This is only one of countless examples creationists use of irreducible complexity. I appreciated the deck of cards example. The only problem is a single celled organism is incredibly more complex than a deck of cards. Its a bit like a city that can move around and duplicate itself. Any less complex and it can't exist as a living organism. It would simply break down into its base elements again. Now what I can't see is How you go from amino acid molecules, which are just building blocks, to a functioning cell. The only mechanism to do this is found in a living cell that has the information in the DNA (ridiculously complicated molecules) to instruct the cell what to make out of what and where to put it. I understand that given enough time unlikely things can happen but when does unlikely become impossible? you see given enough time random selection can produce and ordered sequence such as pulling a ace of spades out of a pack of cards repeatedly 1000 times it is possible given enough time, but DNA isn't random order. It's information, blueprints and instructions. and information, as far as I'm aware only comes from intelligence. Saying that life on earth was seeded from another planet only puts the same problem somewhere else. it doesn't solve it. if there is life on another planet it's just as likely to have originated here and seeded the other planet. Since Earth appears to be unique this is most likely the case. Thanks for your thread guys

You can't huh. Must not have tried very hard to imagine. The eye has evolved separately over a dozen times and quite frankly the Human eye is one of the weaker ones. Huge Blind spot in the center non-telescopic only able to detect a narrow range in the light spectrum. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

[Image: 79543-004-C3F00EE8.jpg]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/librar...11_01.html





http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/variation/eye/

http://www.nyas.org/publications/detail....79a061fff7

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...le/eyes_01

But of course you are using the totally debunked theory of Irreducible Complexity. You must be new at this, picking such an easy one to disprove should have started with the Bacterial Flagellum that at least requires an understanding of Chemistry and microscopic anatomy to disprove.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Revenant77x's post
19-11-2013, 04:13 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(19-11-2013 03:07 AM)In search of truth Wrote:  mmm, interesting thread people. just a couple of things though. at this stage I can't see how they human eye can evolve. Take away one element of it and it couldn't function as an eye. even if the eye did evolve completely but the brain didn't know how to do the rapid micro eye movements, the photosensitive cells would stabilize almost instantly and the eye wouldn't work. The fact that the eye has evolved several times does not prove that the eye can easily evolve it just means that evolution had to pull off this fluke several times making it all the more unlikely. This is only one of countless examples creationists use of irreducible complexity. I appreciated the deck of cards example. The only problem is a single celled organism is incredibly more complex than a deck of cards. Its a bit like a city that can move around and duplicate itself. Any less complex and it can't exist as a living organism. It would simply break down into its base elements again. Now what I can't see is How you go from amino acid molecules, which are just building blocks, to a functioning cell. The only mechanism to do this is found in a living cell that has the information in the DNA (ridiculously complicated molecules) to instruct the cell what to make out of what and where to put it. I understand that given enough time unlikely things can happen but when does unlikely become impossible? you see given enough time random selection can produce and ordered sequence such as pulling a ace of spades out of a pack of cards repeatedly 1000 times it is possible given enough time, but DNA isn't random order. It's information, blueprints and instructions. and information, as far as I'm aware only comes from intelligence. Saying that life on earth was seeded from another planet only puts the same problem somewhere else. it doesn't solve it. if there is life on another planet it's just as likely to have originated here and seeded the other planet. Since Earth appears to be unique this is most likely the case. Thanks for your thread guys

Why is it people who create pretentious forum names involving the word 'truth' never seem to be able to Google anything that might fly contrary to their delicate presupposed sensibilities?

Everything there is practically copy/pasted ignorant pseudo-scientific dribble pushed by the Discovery Institute. Evolution is the most well attested theory in all of science, and not finding answers to these questions means you simply haven't been looking; or you've been getting all of your information from people who lie to you.

The Discovery Institute flat out lies to you.

They dress up in lab coats and pretend to publish papers only for the surface veneer and barest perception of legitimacy; relying on the ignorance of people (like yourself) to be unable to tell real science from bullshit. Given the deteriorating state of our nation's education system, their tactic is working unfortunately. Their purpose is explicitly religious in nature, science is simply not on their side. They are 'god of the gaps' salesmen. Don't believe me? Take a look at their Wedge Document for yourself.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like EvolutionKills's post
19-11-2013, 08:47 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(19-11-2013 04:13 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  The Discovery Institute flat out lies to you.

They dress up in lab coats and pretend to publish papers only for the surface veneer and barest perception of legitimacy; relying on the ignorance of people (like yourself) to be unable to tell real science from bullshit. Given the deteriorating state of our nation's education system, their tactic is working unfortunately. Their purpose is explicitly religious in nature, science is simply not on their side. They are 'god of the gaps' salesmen. Don't believe me? Take a look at their Wedge Document for yourself.

They also use green screens and Shutterstock images to add credibility to their woo pushers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2013, 10:00 PM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(19-11-2013 04:13 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  The Discovery Institute flat out lies to you.

They dress up in lab coats and pretend to publish papers only for the surface veneer and barest perception of legitimacy; relying on the ignorance of people (like yourself) to be unable to tell real science from bullshit. Given the deteriorating state of our nation's education system, their tactic is working unfortunately. Their purpose is explicitly religious in nature, science is simply not on their side. They are 'god of the gaps' salesmen. Don't believe me? Take a look at their Wedge Document for yourself.

QFTMFT. And I was about to drag out the "Wedge Document" as I was reading, and was pleased read on and see that you beat me to it.

Gawd, I fucking LOVE this forum. Some really sharp people here. Props to you, EK! Thumbsup

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2013, 08:52 PM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
A shortcoming of science in explaining one requisite factor for life today could be wiped away tomorrow by a new discovery. In the meantime, it makes no sense to explain one complexity (one of your"factors necessary for life") by invoking something that must by definition be even more complex (an "eternal, intelligent force").

All creationist arguments take off from this improbability: living things in this world are too complex to have come about by chance, therefore they must have been designed. This argument is self-defeating. Any being capable of designing really complex things must be even more complex itself. Additionally, by insisting that things of our cosmos, ourselves included, must have had a beginning, you necessitate a beginning for any intelligent designer that you bring into the picture. Complexity is the problem that any theory of origins has to solve, and you cannot solve it by postulating a force that is even more complex.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like jps40's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: